1. science
2. ecology
3. waste management
4. recycling

The Regional Municipality of Durham
Energy from Waste-Waste Management
Advisory Committee
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
7:00 PM
Lower Level Boardroom (LL-C)
Regional Headquarters Building
605 Rossland Road East, Whitby
Notice to Individuals Regarding the Collection, Use and Disclosure of Personal Information:
Written correspondence submitted in paper copy or electronically to Regional Council or
Committees, including personal information such as home address, telephone number and
email address, will become part of the public record. It will be collected and maintained for the
purposes of creating a record and may be available to the general public pursuant to the
Municipal Act, 2001 and any other relevant Acts. References in oral submissions made by
delegations will also become part of the public record. Questions about this collection of
information should be addressed to the Regional Clerk - Director of Legislative Services,
Corporate Services Department.
1.
Adoption of Minutes
A)
Of the EFW-WMAC meeting held on November 18, 2014
2.
Declarations of Interest
3.
Announcements
4.
Presentations
A)
Presentation by Suzanne Barnes, EFW-WMAC Vice Chair,
Regarding ‘In-depth EFW-WMAC Member Introduction’
Pages 3 – 17
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3560.
Energy from Waste-Waste Management
Advisory Committee (EFW-WMAC)
AGENDA - Tuesday, February 17, 2015
B)
Presentation by Lyndsay Waller, Operations Technician, and Kristy
Brooks, Technical Assistant, Regional Municipality of Durham,
Regarding ‘Durham York Energy Centre Project Website’
C)
Presentation by Leon Brasowski, Director, Environmental
Engineering, Covanta, Regarding 'Durham York Energy
Centre’s Bottom and Fly Ash Disposal Protocol'
5.
Delegations
A)
Jane Dempsey, President & CEO, of Beyond Covers Inc. has
requested to appear before the EFW-WMAC to discuss ‘Products
made from Recycled Material, and the ability to sell products to the
Region of Durham’.
6.
Correspondence
Page 2
Handout
There is no correspondence to be considered.
7.
Administrative Matters
A)
EFW-WMAC Work Plan
Handout
B)
2015 Community Events
Handout
8.
Other Business
A)
Update on the Durham York Energy Centre
B)
Durham York Energy Centre Educational Tour
C)
Award Presentations to the Waste Management Services Division,
of the Works Department
9.
Date of Next Meeting
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
10.
Adjournment
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097.
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Minutes
Energy From Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee
November 18, 2014
A meeting of the Energy From Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee
was held on Tuesday, November 18, 2014 in the Lower Level Boardroom (LL-C),
Regional Headquarters, 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby, at 7:00 PM.
Present:
T. Baker, Pickering, Chair
S. Barnes, Clarington, Vice Chair
W. Bracken, Clarington
N. Burnett, Ajax
M. Clayton, Whitby
S. Clearwater, Whitby
K. Coupland, Clarington
E. Fernando, Oshawa
J. Vinson, Clarington
Non-Voting Members
Present:
K. Gorman, Director, Environmental Health, Health Department,
Durham Region
Councillor Neal, Local Councillor, Clarington
Staff
Present:
Also
Present:
G. Anello, Manager, Waste Planning and Technical Services, Works
Department, Durham Region
K. Brooks, Technical Assistant, Works Department, Durham Region
J. Paquette, Manager, Corporate Communications
L. Waller, Operations Technician, Works Department, Durham
Region
D. James, Committee Clerk, Corporate Services – Legislative
Services, Durham Region
D. Crome, Director, Planning Services, Municipality of Clarington
S. Hall, Executive Director and Economic Officer, Planning Services,
Municipality of Clarington
3
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 2 of 15
1.
Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest.
2.
Adoption of Minutes
Moved by M. Clayton,
“That the minutes of the EFW-WMAC meeting held on
September 30, 2014 be adopted.”
CARRIED
3.
Announcements
There were no announcements to be heard.
4.
Presentations
A)
Presentation by David Crome, Director, Planning Services,
Municipality of Clarington, Re: Clarington Energy Business Park:
Progress to 2014
D. Crome, Director, Planning Services and S. Hall. Executive
Director and Economic Officer, Municipality of Clarington provided a
PowerPoint presentation on the Clarington Energy Business Park:
Progress to 2014. A copy of the presentation was provided as a
handout.
D. Crome stated the Energy and Environment Park will have a
global vision and focus; be technology driven; have a research
component with strong links to University of Ontario Institute of
Technology (UOIT); demonstrate Best Practices in energy and the
environment; provide access to research, testing, and economic
incentives; promote synergies among users and with outside
partners; contain shared testing facilities; and, accommodate nichemarket manufacturing.
D. Crome advised the term ‘energy cluster’ is an eco-term that
describes the ability of industries to build in the same area and
support each other while still being competitive, and that the key to
the energy cluster is collaboration. D. Crome displayed maps of the
proposed Clarington Energy Park layout and advised that the
Secondary Plan highlights the different locations for development
and zoning.
D. Crome also advised that the roads, sanitary sewers, and
watermains are currently being upgraded and that the installation of
both municipal water and sanitary sewers has been extended to the
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. He further advised that this
will coincide with the refurbishment of the Darlington Nuclear
Generating Station.
4
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 3 of 15
D. Crome stated that the refurbishment of the Darlington Nuclear
Generating Station is the largest project undertaken by Ontario
Power Generation (OPG) which will begin in 2016 and is slated for
completion by the year 2021. He advised that a new state of the art
Training Facility has been built and that further expansion at the
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station will include a new waste tube
storage building; vehicle screening facility; and, a new OPG office
building.
D. Crome presented a video entitled “Darlington Refurbishment –
Practice Makes Perfect - Our State-of-the-Art Training Facility”.
S. Hall noted that the vision for the Energy Park was created over
10 years ago and that the Municipality of Clarington has hosted and
attended energy focused events over the past seven years. She
further advised that the Municipality of Clarington has helped to
strengthen the relationship between developers and the real estate
community and raise awareness of the opportunity for accessory
businesses such as hotels and other services.
S. Hall stated that the Municipality of Clarington has hosted six
energy summits that have helped to educate people on the Energy
Park. She advised that the energy summits have also enabled local
businesses, students and OPG contractors to meet. She also
advised that two new nuclear industries have been established
within the Energy Park, and an additional two nuclear industries
have been established outside the Energy Park. She further advised
that a 32,000 square foot energy business centre office building
located at 71 Osborne Road is slated to begin construction.
S. Hall concluded by advising of the four mega projects the
Municipality of Clarington has an interest in which include the
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station refurbishment; Port
Granby/Port Hope Area Initiative; the 407 Highway expansion; and,
key local infrastructure improvements.
D. Crome and S. Hall responded to questions with respect to what
incentives are in place to attract businesses to the Energy Park; if
larger businesses in the Energy Park could lease a portion of their
facility to smaller companies; and, if the Municipality of Clarington
had explored the option of ‘building on spec’ and then leasing the
buildings to help offset costs.
B)
Presentation by Gioseph Anello, Manager, Waste Planning and
Technical Services, Regional Municipality of Durham, Re: Reporting
and Budget Development
G. Anello provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Reporting and
Budget Development process at the Region of Durham. A copy of
the presentation was provided as a handout.
5
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 4 of 15
G. Anello displayed the Durham Region Organization Chart and
advised that the Region’s mission is to meet the needs of the
community through leadership, co-operation and service excellence.
He stated that most of the Region’s programs and services are
overseen by the following four Standing Committees: Health &
Social Services, Planning & Economic Development, Finance &
Administration and Works. He further stated that the Works
Committee is responsible for oversight of the following services:
municipal water supply, treatment and distribution; regional roads,
bridges and traffic signals; sanitary sewage collection and treatment;
and waste management.
G. Anello highlighted the strategic theme, goals and planning
process of the Region of Durham.
G. Anello advised of the budget planning guidelines and advised
that the process of preparing the Waste Management Budget begins
in July and is completed in December or January of each year; and,
that the Annual Budget and Five Year Forecast is presented to the
Works Committee in February of each year. He further advised that
technical reports necessary to support the Waste Management
Program are created throughout the year.
C)
Presentation by Craig Bartlett, Manager, Waste Operations,
Regional Municipality of Durham, Re: Waste Management Status in
Ontario
The Waste Management Status in Ontario presentation was
deferred until the next meeting of the EFW-WMAC.
5.
Delegations
A)
Linda Gasser, Whitby Resident, Re: Ash Management Issues
L. Gasser appeared before the Committee to speak on the issue of
Ash Management.
L. Gasser advised that during the EFW-WMAC meeting held on
February 13, 2013, L. Brasowski, Director, Environmental
Engineering, Covanta Energy Corporation responded to questions
with respect to the fly ash issues at the Burnaby, B.C. incinerator
operated by Covanta and she inquired into whether those questions
have been answered.
L. Gasser stated that during the June 2014 EFW Open House it was
disclosed that the ash management plan had changed and that
instead of the ash going to New York state, it will be shipped to
Walker Brothers in Thorold, Ontario.
6
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 5 of 15
L. Gasser referenced a Stantec Report to the British Columbia
Ministry of the Environment which included the advantages and
disadvantages of fly ash management techniques. She noted that
the report discussed encapsulation and that this has been proposed
to be used at the EFW in Durham Region.
L. Gasser quoted from a 2014 Metro-Vancouver article with respect
to the fly ash lawsuit at the Burnaby incinerator and referenced a
further article that described problems with bottom ash from the
Burnaby incinerator at another landfill with exceedances for
cadmium.
L. Gasser recommended that the Committee review the conditions
of the Certificate of Approval, in particular, conditions 7 through 9.
She stated she believes it would be useful to the Committee to
request a formal, detailed presentation by the Durham-York Project
Team staff, Covanta and the Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change (MOECC) about Durham’s ash management
protocols and that MOECC explain the safeguards implemented as
a result of what occurred in British Columbia.
Ms. Gasser responded to questions from the Committee.
6.
A)
Correspondence
Correspondence from Linda Gasser to the Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change dated November 6, 2014 Re:
‘Metro Vancouver – Fly Ash Problems’
Moved by N. Burnett,
“That the correspondence from Linda Gasser to the Ministry
of Environment and Climate Change be received for
information.”
CARRIED
General discussion ensued regarding the current protocol in place
for the disposal of bottom and fly ash at the York Durham
Centre; if the protocol has been approved by the Ministry of the
Environment and Climate Change; and, if a presentation on the
protocol could be arranged for the next meeting of the EFW-WMAC.
7.
Administrative Matters
A)
Durham York Energy Centre Tree Planting Plan
T. Baker, Chair advised that the plans for the tree planting at the
Durham York Energy Centre had been viewed at a previous meeting
of the Committee. A copy of the Tree Planting Plan was provided as
a handout.
7
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 6 of 15
It was noted that planting a mixture of different trees would hopefully
allow for a better survival rate of the trees.
B)
Discussion Regarding 2015 Community Events
General discussion ensued. The Committee agreed to discuss the
development of a community events communications plan at the
next meeting as it was felt that last year’s communications did not
effectively convey that EFW-WMAC members were in attendance at
various waste events.
Staff was asked to provide the locations of the events to the
Committee members scheduled to attend the community events in
the North.
C)
Discussion Regarding EFW-WMAC Consolidated Comments on the
Regional Mobile Air Quality Monitoring Program (2014-MOH-02)
T. Baker, Chair advised that six members submitted comments on the
Regional Mobile Air Quality Monitoring Program. He further advised
that the comments received were distributed to all members before the
meeting.
General discussion ensued with respect to the comments.
G. Anello responded to questions with respect to the costs to build an
additional monitoring station, and the costs associated with operating
the existing monitoring station. He advised that he would provide
these costs at the next meeting of the EFW-WMAC.
Moved by K. Coupland,
"That the following comments with respect to Report
#2014-MOH-02, Regional Mobile Air Quality Monitoring
Program, be forwarded to Regional staff:
a)
Page 5-4 Table 5.2: Air Quality Index Summary (2011). There
is no mention of Whitby or Oshawa in this table however cities
like Guelph, Kitchener and London, etc. are identified
separately. Oshawa and Whitby may be captured under
Toronto East but this is not clear and with the high density of
industry in Durham Region they should be identified
separately;
b)
A conclusion can be drawn from this document that no mobile
approach meets the entire needs of the Region’s proposed air
monitoring program. The Mobile Van/Truck or TAGA options
are really only viable for emergency response situations, odour
emissions monitoring and to some extent point source and
sensitive receptor monitoring. This leaves a gap in the needs
of the program for the Region that can’t be filled by the three
8
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 7 of 15
stationary ambient AQ monitoring stations, at Durham College
(MOE), ~15 km to the north-west and the Osbourne Road and
Rundle Road (~1km away). A few sparsely placed monitors do
not adequately characterize the level of exposure to all
residents;
c)
The objective stated for the Regional mobile monitoring
program (both in the Report and in the original motion
endorsed by Regional Council) was “to build public confidence
with regard to air quality issues which the Region is addressing
through numerous projects, programs, and initiatives.” Instead,
it is suggested that the stated objective should be “to collect
complete, impartial and valid data and to provide accurate and
thorough analysis of such information so the state of the
Regional air shed can be better understood”. Such a program
shall inform policy decisions so it must be emphasized that the
data must be collected, analyzed and presented objectively,
transparently and completely. Otherwise, such a program has
the potential to do more harm than good;
d)
Report #2014-MOH-02 only considered data from the north
Oshawa monitoring station operated by the MOECC. The
important EA (Environmental Assessment) data collected in
Durham at the site of the EFW facility in Courtice was
completely excluded from the report. Durham Region
taxpayers paid millions of dollars for the EA studies which
included collecting the baseline data, and the Region of
Durham obviously has this data, yet it was not even mentioned
in the report. This data should have been included in this
report as there were concerns expressed by Ministry of
Environment reviewers and Health Canada reviewers at the
time of the EA. These concerns are documented in MOECC
reports and would be helpful to inform future decisions on the
Mobile Monitoring Program;
e)
The report on page 48 states that annual average PM2.5 data
collected at the MOE Oshawa station has been consistently
below the CWS for PM2.5, however there is no mention of
new CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment) guidelines, no mention of World Health
Organization (WHO) benchmarks and no mention that fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations measured at the
Courtice site during the EA exceed new CCME and WHO
benchmarks. The PM2.5 concentrations measured at
Courtice for the EA were 28.6 µg/m3 for 98th percentile 24hour PM2.5 (which exceeds the new Canada Wide Standard
value of 28 µg/m3 for 98th percentile 24 –hour PM2.5) and
9
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 8 of 15
the annual average PM2.5 concentration measured at
Courtice was 10.2 µg/m3 (which exceeds the WHO
benchmark of 10 µg/m3). Furthermore, comparisons of the EA
Courtice annual average concentration against other annual
average values in Table 3.1, pg. 93 of the Mobile Monitoring
report show Courtice had a higher concentration. Windsor’s
annual mean was 7.6 µg/m3, Toronto’s mean was 6.2, while
Courtice’s annual average PM2.5 concentration reported in
the EA was 10.2 µg/m3;
f)
The report admits Oshawa’s ozone did not meet CWS, but
then dismisses it saying only 6 out of 21 monitoring sites were
able to meet CWS for ozone and says it is encouraging that
CWS metrics for ozone are decreasing each year, however it
does not report on the bad (and likely more important news)
that is the air quality in Ontario report that show that the annual
means for ozone are trending up (Toronto up 11%, Windsor up
28%);
g)
On page 35 – Data analysis and reporting –
Training/Certification – states a Professional Engineer or
equivalent. We suggest someone with an Information
Technology/Data Analysis and Reporting background who has
experience in working with air quality monitoring data;
h)
We suggest Durham Region employ the same approach as
Halton Region with respect to air monitoring. Currently, Halton
Region has two fixed air monitors, one in Oakville and one in
Burlington. Milton was chosen as the site for an additional fixed
air monitoring station due to the fact that its population is
expected to double by 2031;
i)
Why does Halton Region have 3 fixed air monitors and
Durham Region only has one positioned at UOIT/Durham
College? Their airshed is different than that of Durham
Region since they are mostly concerned with vehicle
emissions and Durham Region’s airshed is mostly
concerned with industrial emissions, however it’s still total
air emissions that are the concern. Oakville also “wants to
assess every new potential increase in air pollution and
evaluation it based on cumulative effects and they are trying
to restrict the MOECC’s ability to approve new sources or
modifications”. This is a proactive approach to assessing
and monitoring air pollution and it would benefit Durham
10
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 9 of 15
Region if new industry that is proposing to locate in Durham
Region were assessed based on the emissions it produced
to both air and water.
ii)
Cumulative effects or “loading” is an issue in Durham
Region and even though each industry complies with
ministry standards according to their Environmental
Compliance Approvals, it is loading to the environment
that is the issue. Pollution by dilution is therefore no
longer effective. Air pollution in Durham Region can only
be measured effectively with fixed monitoring stations.
iii)
According to Statistics Canada the number of asthma
cases in Durham Region are consistently higher when
compared to Ontario as indicated in tables showing
statistics on the following: Rates of Recent Asthma
Symptoms/Attacks by Gender and Age Group; Rates of
Recent Asthma Medication Use by Gender and Age
Group; Percentage of Residents Age 12+ Reporting
Recent Asthma Symptoms/Attacks; and Percentage of
Residents Aged 12+ Reporting Recent Asthma
Medication Use. These statistics alone would warrant an
increase in fixed monitoring stations. The high incidence
of asthma and the concentration of industries in Durham
Region justify an increase in fixed monitoring stations.
The placement of the only fixed air monitor at
UOIT/Durham College does not adequately monitor air
quality since all the industry is south of this area and the
prevailing wind is from the northwest. A mobile van would
not provide airshed data that can be tracked and
monitored to accurately assess airshed quality over time.
It would therefore not be useful in evaluating the impacts
of a particular emission source on the health of a
community or provide information for enforcement.
iv)
The fact that Durham Region is attracting new industry is
good for economics of the Region, however, like Oakville,
it may be time to assess industrial emissions from each
prospective industry and evaluate it based on cumulative
effects. Durham Region should spend money to market
the Region for the type of industries that don’t contribute
to environmental issues. Ontario’s emissions trading
regulations on sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides (O.
Reg.397/01 and O.Reg. 194/05) should not be allowed
11
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 10 of 15
when determining if an industry is preferable for Durham
Region since although this is considered one method of
air pollution control, it is not effective when considering
the effects from loading;
i)
The air monitoring station at UOIT/Durham College currently
measures ozone (O3), PM2.5 and nitrogen dioxide (NO²). It
may be more effective to put the money that would go towards
a mobile van into more sophisticated fixed monitoring
equipment that would measure additional air pollutants. An
increase in fixed monitors strategically placed downwind of the
prevailing winds and in reasonable proximity to the high
industrial area along Lake Ontario, along with additional
monitoring capacity would better data to assess air quality
trends in Durham Region. The MOECC’s Trace Ambient Gas
Analyzer (TAGA) van is good for measuring VOCs, chlorinated
VOCs, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones and aromatic organic
compounds and the Region of Durham is able to access this
van for non-emergency purposes by submitting a request to
the District Manager of the York Durham District office;
j)
A mobile station, from various references analyzed, is found to
be optimum in areas of high pollution where exposure at a
point in time is necessary (hot spots), for special regional
monitoring surveys due to residents’ concerns and for
conducting a trial period of monitoring prior to possible
installation of a fixed station. Mobile units are expensive and
although worthwhile, but can’t necessarily be in the right place
at the right time and can’t provide an “air zone” air quality
baseline;
k)
Another option presents itself which has found popularity in
western Canada (especially the oil sands region) as well as in
China and Europe. Passive (diffusion) sampling devices are
low cost, portable, simple-to-use and requiring no power. They
can detect a number of air pollutants and the reactive surfaces
of the samplers can be exposed for days to weeks. They do
though require more human intervention to collect and analyze
the samplers. Passive monitors have found favour when
nested together in a region, providing saturation coverage
especially where no monitoring has occurred before, ie. to
acquire a region’s baseline data and to look at long term air
quality trends;
12
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 11 of 15
i)
South Durham has a significant industrial base and has
air quality monitoring, but north and central Durham is
rural with no monitoring, but is typically downwind of this
industry. Thus there is the potential for a network of
inexpensive passive monitors to complete the monitoring
coverage of the region and provide residents with some
peace of mind re: air pollution.
ii)
Companies such as AGAT and Maxxum provide passive
air quality monitors for primary air pollutants, except
PM2.5. The PM2.5 monitoring can be provided by
devices such as the TEOM monitor from Thermo
Scientific, which has been used in Vancouver, or METONE’s BAM-1020, used by the California Air Resources
Board.
l)
The Region of Durham has approved three ambient air
monitoring stations – two full stations with a “four year
monitoring program” and one partial station with a “one year
monitoring program”. (Report: 2013-J-26, September 19, 2013
page 2). The air-shed in the immediate and surrounding
vicinity of the EFW facility is over a major provincial highway,
increasing urban development, a cement manufacturing
facility, and across the lake from the U.S. “The transportation
sector and trans boundary air pollution are major contributors
to air pollution in Ontario…. Trans boundary air pollution
accounts for about half of Ontario’s smog.” (Report 2014MOH-02, February 13, 2014 page 6);
m)
As “Mobile air monitoring generally implies relatively shorterduration ambient air sampling….This type of ambient air study
yields data on air quality impacts and levels, such as maximum
short term concentration levels,…. mobile air monitoring has
limited use in evaluating air quality trends over time, which is
required, for example, to evaluate the effectiveness of a policy
or regulation, evaluate the impacts of a particular emission
source on the health of a community, or enforcement
activities.” (Report 2014-MOH-02, February 13, 2014 page 6);
n)
A Regional Mobile Air Quality Monitoring Program would not
necessarily provide additional data on emissions sourced at
the EFW facility, than that which will be collected by the three
ambient air monitoring stations. The further the distance from
the EFW facility the mobile air monitoring station is located, the
13
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 12 of 15
more difficult it would be to attribute air quality impacts to a
defined source;
o)
If the Regional Council determines that an ambient air
monitoring program would be beneficial to alleviate the
concerns of citizens within the air-shed, we would recommend
an ambient air monitoring program incorporating Option C as
Options A and B do not meet all the terms of the RMAQM
program;
p)
A Regional Mobile Air Monitoring program would need to
monitor numerous locations across the Region, especially
locations near large industrial emitters, for adequate amounts
of time, and across various seasons;
q)
The list of pollutants, duration of monitoring, equipment
needed and organizations/analysis of data need to be drawn
up by completely independent air experts (preferably from
academia) with no affiliation to industrial polluters in the area.
Any consultants/experts affiliated with the Canadian EnergyFrom-Waste Coalition, for example, should not be engaged to
set up such a monitoring program;
r)
Any Regional Mobile Air Monitoring Program should include
continuous particulate matter monitoring. Mobile monitoring
around the EFW facility and other industrial polluters should
also include monitoring of ultrafine particulate matter since
such mobile monitoring technology is available, and also
because ultrafine particulate pollution was identified as being
high public health concern, yet currently ultrafine particulate
levels will not be monitored by the Region at the EFW facility;
s)
Data resulting from a Regional Mobile Air Monitoring Program
needs to be put in context for Regional councillors and the
public. Data should be compared to not only other locations in
Southern Ontario, but also against the numerous other
locations across Canada collecting such data. Furthermore,
such data should not only be compared against Ontario
Ministry of Environment standards, but also against World
Health Organization benchmarks and other existing, relevant
standards/benchmarks. Finally, reporting should acknowledge
emerging research regarding whether existing standards are
health protective;
14
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 13 of 15
t)
As pointed out in the report, any mobile air monitoring program
will not be able to identify the source of any ambient air
problem should one be found. Before embarking on any mobile
air monitoring program, the Region of Durham, as owners of
several major industrial polluters, including the Duffins Creek
Water Pollution Control Plant (NPRI data which shows the
facility is number on in Ontario for mercury pollution) and now
the EFW facility in Courtice, should be investing in source
monitoring that is available. It needs to be a priority that the
Region should embark on is the continuous monitoring of
particulate matter and mercury at the stack that is being done
in Europe, even if it is for compliance assurance only;
u)
Utilize the no cost option of using the MOECC’s mobile TAGA
monitoring unit to monitor pollutants, including ultra-fine
particulate matter near the EFW facility and to inform the
development of Mobile Air Monitoring Program. In discussions
with MOECC, the MOECC stated that the mobile device has
this capability. This would be very important to utilize since
citizens, scientists and doctors have repeatedly stated that
ultrafine particulate emissions are of the highest concern, and,
as of now, while the Regions will be monitoring fine particulate
matter twice per year, the Regions will not be monitoring
ultrafine particulates at all; and
v)
We support the motion for increased air quality monitoring. If
the results of the two monitoring stations that make up the
MOECC requirements do not match the additional stations
data it will bring into focus other issues of either reporting
malfunctions or polluting sources other than the EFW facility.”
CARRIED
Moved by M. Clayton,
“That we recommend to the Works Committee,
That the Region of Durham petition the Province of Ontario’s
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to install an
additional air monitoring station to be located in the Region of
Durham along the 401 corridor between the Toronto East Station
and the Municipality of Clarington.”
MOTION WITHDRAWN LATER IN
THE MEETING (See Following
Discussion)
15
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 14 of 15
Discussion ensued with respect to the motion lessening the
importance of the other comments submitted to Regional staff
regarding the Regional Mobile Air Quality Monitoring Program
Report 2014-MOH-02. Based on the discussion, M. Clayton
WITHDREW her motion with the concurrence of the Committee.
8.
Other Business
A)
Waste Management Services – Annual Report 2013
The Waste Management Services – Annual Report 2013 was
provided as handout.
G. Anello responded to a question from the Committee with respect
to the current diversion rate of 52% compared with the diversion rate
target of 70% and what is being done to reach the goal of 70%
diversion. He advised that the provincial programs in place impact
the diversion rate and that the upcoming presentation by C. Bartlett
on Waste Management Status in Ontario would provide further
information on the waste diversion rates.
B)
Update on the Durham York Energy Centre
G. Anello provided a project update on the Durham York Energy
Centre. He stated that the buildings have been constructed and
work has moved inside. He advised that testing of the equipment
has begun and noted that residents may observe steam plumes
(discharged water vapour) over the facility during the testing. He
stated this is due to ‘stream blows’ which occurs when the water
pressure is increased to maximum capacity to test if the pipes can
withstand the pressure and then released into the air.
C)
Discussion Regarding Proposed Date For a Tour of the Durham
York Energy Centre
T. Baker, Chair suggested that since the start-up of the EFW is
projected for mid-December, a tour of the facility in mid-January
would be most beneficial.
General discussion ensued and it was the concurrence of the
Committee to have staff look into arranging a tour of the Durham
York Energy Centre for mid-January.
16
Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee Minutes
November 18, 2014
Page 15 of 15
D)
Proposed 2015 EFW-WMAC Meeting Dates
General discussion ensued. It was the concurrence of the
Committee that the following dates be confirmed as the 2015
Meeting Schedule for the EFW-WMAC:
Tuesday, February 17
Tuesday, May 26
Tuesday, September 15
Tuesday, November 17.
9.
Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of the Energy from Waste – Waste
Management Advisory Committee will be held on Tuesday,
February 17, 2015 in the Lower Level Boardroom (LL-C), at 7:00
PM, Regional Headquarters, 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby.
10.
Adjournment
Moved by N. Burnett
"THAT the meeting be adjourned."
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 8:50 PM.
T. Baker, Chair, Energy
From Waste- Waste
Management Advisory
Committee
______________________
D. James, Committee Clerk
17