Loading...
2001/02/19REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 19, 2001 Order of Business and Agenda Package REGULAR MEETING February 19, 2001 PRAYER: Alderman Judy Orr DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereof will be made for the current Council Meeting at this time. MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, REMARKS PRESENTATIONS His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson will make a presentation to two Niagara Falls residents for their achievements in the line of sports. - Frank Dancevic will be recognized for winning the National Junior Tennis title and participating recently in the prestigious Australian Open. - Kevin (Buck) Miller will be recognized for winning the Ontario Cup Series Championship for cycling in the Road Racing category. m DEPUTATIONS Sherman Zavitz, Official City Historian, Inge Saczkowski and Jim Mitchinson of the City of Niagara Falls Heritage Week Committee wishes to address Council regarding Heritage Week activities in the City of Niagara Falls. Jack Gibbons, Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, wishes to address Council respecting their request that the City of Niagara Falls call for an environmental assessment of Ontario Power Generation's plans for its coal-fired power plants. -2- COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK Jenny Morgenthau, Executive Director, The Fresh Air Fund - Re: Proclamation - requesting that Council proclaim March 20, 2001 as "Fresh Air Fund Day in Niagara Falls". RECOMMENDATION: That the request be supported. Cheryl Miclette, AMCT, Town Clerk, Town of Pelham - Re: Mobility Niagara - requesting support for the Mobility Niagara program and consideration of a financial contribution which would allow for the reinstatement of this program, during the City's 2001 Budget deliberations. RECOMMENDATION: That the matter be referred to staff. Ann Mulvale, President, AMO - Re: 2001 AMO Annual Conference - Advising that the 2001 Annual Conference will be held from August 19 - 22, 2001 at the Fairmount Royal York Hotel in Toronto. Registration before the Early Bird deadline can save AMO members more than 30% off the on-site fee. RECOMMENDATION: For Council consideration. Additional Items for Council Consideration: The City Clerk will advise of any further Items for Council consideration. REPORTS RATIFICATION OF CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE ACTIONS (Alderman Wayne Campbell, Chair) COMMUNITY SERVICES MATTERS 1. Chief Administrative Officer 2. Chief Administrative Officer 3. Chief Administrative Officer MW-2001-18, Agreement with the Province to construct a Storm Trunk Sewer across Highway 420. MW-2001-19, Contract 2001-16, T.V. Inspection of Sewers. R-2001-06, The Supply and Installation of Fitness Play Equipment and Landscape Materials for Chippawa Lions Park. -3- PLANNING MATTERS Chief Administrative Officer PD-2001-20, Matters Arising from the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (L.A.C.A.C.) - AND - Proclamation, February 18 - 25, 2001 as Heritage Week; and Heritage Tour including Special Exhibits on February 22, 2001. RATIFICATION OF COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE ACTIONS BY-LAWS The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to the by- laws listed for Council consideration. 2001-42 To authorize the execution of an agreement with Trans-Video Inspection Limited respecting T.V. inspection of sewers from March 2001 to December 19, 2003. 2001-43 To authorize the execution of an agreement with Noelle Sinclair and Kerrie Sinclair respecting "Roosevelt Condominium". NEW BUSINESS From: Dean Iorfida To: Wagg, Woody Date: 1/30/01 12:33PM Subject: Council Recognition for February 19th At the above noted Council meeting, we would like to recognize the following Niagara fFIIs residents: Frank Dancevic will be recognized by the Mayor for winning the National Junior Tennis title and participating recently in the prestigious Australian Open. Kevin (Buck) Miller will be recognized by the Mayor for winning the Ontario Cup Series Championship for cycling in the Road Racing category. Thanks Dean CC: Barb Muir; Lori Lightfoot The City of Niagara Falls Canada 7020 Woodington Road Niagara Falls, ON L2J 2C3 February 8, 2001 E. C. Wagg City Clerk city mn 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Dear Woody, On behalf of the City of Niagara Falls Heritage Week Committee, I would like to ask if the three members of the committee (Inge Saczkowski, Jim Mitchinson and myself) could make a short presentation to council on Monday, February 19 re Heritage Week activities in Niagara Falls. Sherman Zavitz Official Historian City Of Niagara Falls, Canada ONTARIO Cl.[AN AIR ALLIANGI~' Febma~y 13, 2001 Ms. Barbara Muir Clerk's Department City of Niagara Falls Fax: 1-905-356-9083 Dear Ms. Muir: Re: Request for Environmental Assessment of Ontario Power Generation's plans for its Nanticoke and Lambton Generating Stations Further to our telephone conversation, I am writing to request the opportunity to make a deputation to City Council on February 19, 2001 with respect to our request that the City of Niagara Falls call for an. environmental assessment of Ontario Power Generation's plans for its coal-fired Power plants. Yours truly, 625 Churnh Street, Suite 402, Toronto, On:~ario, M-4Y 2Gl Tel: (416)-926-1907 ext..240 · Fax: (416)-926-1601 E- ma il: in£o@cleanairalliar~ce.org Web Site: www, cieanairalliance.or~ February 5, 2001 ON'rAn~o C~LEAN AIR Clerk's Department City of Niagara Falls, ~ P.O. Box 1023 4310 Queen St., ON L2E 6X5 Dear Clerk: I am writing to ask the municipality of Niagara Falls to pass a resolution requesting Canada's and Onlario's Ministers of the Environment to subject Ontario Power Generation's (OPG's) proposal to install selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units at its Lambton and Nanticoke coal-fired power plants to a full public environmental assessment. A joint federal-provincial environmental assessment hearing would be our preferred approach.. Mayor Lorraine Bergstrand of Haldimand County (Nanticoke's home town), Councillor Sam Merulla of Hamilton, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance and the Attorney Generals of New York State and Connecticut have already requested that OPG's proposal be subject to federal and/or provincial environmental assessments. On December 7, 2000, the Governments of Canada and the United States signed the Ozone Annex to the 1991 Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement. The Ozone Annex requires fossil fuel power plants in southern Ontario to reduce their smog-causing nitrogen oxides emissions by approximately 50% by 2007. OPG has two principal options to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex: a) the replacement of some or all of its coal-fired boilers, with high, efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines; or b) the installation of SCRs on some or all of its coal-fired units. OPG has announced that it intends to achieve compliance through the second option. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance believes that SCRs are a misguided option for achieving compliance with the Ozone Annex for the following reasons. SCRs use ammonia, an extremely toxic substance, to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions. The residual ammonia discharged from SCRs combines with sulphur to form fine particulate matter. Fine particulates, which lodge deeply in our lungs, have been linked to various health problems including asthma and lung disease, and can cause death. SCRs only reduce one of the more than 30 pollutants emitted by OPG's coal plants. Specifically, SCRs would not reduce the coal plants' sulphur dioxide (smog and acid rain), mercury (a potent nerve toxin), carbon dioxide (global warming and climate 625 Church Street, Suite 402, Toronto, Ontario, M4Y 201 Tel= (416)-926-1907 ext. 240 · Fax: (416)-926-1601 E-mail: info@cleanairalliance.org Web Site: www. cleanairalliance.org change) and six cancer-causing (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel) emissions. Installation of SCRs would permit OPG to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex ' and increase its coal-fired electricity production and its' emissions of sulphur dioxide, mercury, carbon'dioxide and six cancer-causing pollutants. According to OPG repons, OPG's coal-fired production and emissions of sulphur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide and six cancer-causing pollutants will increase by .up to 26% between 1999 and 2012. A significant portion of the increased coal-fired electricity will be exported to the U.S.A. Switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas for'electricity generation is a cost- effective and comprehensive pollution prevention option to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex and to protect public health and the environment. Replacing OPG's coal boilers with high-efficiency natural gas-combined-cycle turbines would dramatically reduce or eliminate all of OPG's 30 problem emissions. As Canada, s Minister of the Environment noted in a letter to Ontario's Minister of the Environment, switching to natural gas is a pragmatic and cost-effective pollution prevention strategy: "All of these developments indicate that large reductions of SO2 [sulphur dioxide], NOx [nitrogen oxides], PM [particulate matter], mercury and CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions will be required from Ontario's electric-power generation sector. The conversion or replacement of coal-fired power generation by natural gas using advanced technology appears to be the most practical and co~t-effective means of reducing all of the pollutants simultaneously. I urge you, therefore, ~o move forward on an accelerated program now." I am enclosing for your information: 1) ".States demand Canada cut smog" Globe and Mail, February 5, 2001; 2) OCAA fact sheet "Selective Catalytic Reduction: OPG's plan promises more pollution"; 3) letters from the Sierra Legal Defence Fund to Canada's and Ontario's Ministers of the Environment requesting environmental assessments of OPG's proposal; 4) the Ontario Clean Air Alliance membership list; and a 5) sample draft resolution requesting federal and provincial environmental assessments. If you require any additional information or if you would like me to make a presentation to City Council or a committee of City Council, please give me a call at 416-926-1907 ext. 240. Thank you for considering our request. Yours Jack G~ons Chai~/ SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND January31,2001 The Honourable David Anderson, M.P., P.C. Minister of the Environment 28th Floor 10 Wellington Street Hull, Quebec K1A 0H3 Dear Minister Anderson, Re: Request for Federal Environmental Assessment of Ontario Power Generation's Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Proposal 30 St. Patrick Street Suite 900 Toronto, ON Canada, MST 3A3 416.368.7533 (SLDF) Pax: 416.363.2746 E-mail: sld fon@sie r talc g.a Lorg We&itc: www. sierralegal.org I. INTRODUCTION I act for the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA), a coalition of 76 organizations including municipalities, utilities, public health and environmental organizations, unions, faith communities, and cottager associations representing over 6 million Ontarians. Please consider this a formal request pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) that you exercise your authority to refer to an environmental assessment review panel Ontario Power Generation's (OPG's) recently announced proposal to install selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units on two of the four coal-fired units at its Lambton Generating Station, and two of the eight coal-fired units at its Nanticoke Generating Station. The OCAA requests that you invoke your power to refer proposals to a review panel on the basis that: i) ii) iii) the proposed project will result in significant adverse environmental effects in the United States [s.47(1) of CEAA]; the proposed project will cause significant adverse environmental effects on First Nations lands [s. 48(1)(a) of CEAA] and; public concerns warrant a reference to a mediator or review panel [s.28(1)(b) of CEAA]. SIERRA I.EGAL DE F EN(~' 1:. F[JND The project and its effects The proposed project will result in significant adverse public health and environmental impacts for two principal reasons. First, the installation and operation of SCR units requires the use of ammonia, an extremely hazardous substance. Of great concern is that the residual ammonia from the catalytic process will lead both to the creation of fine particulate matter and nitrous oxide, and to the acidification of soils and lakes. Second, the installation of SCRs would permit OPG to continue to operate its coal plants at their current or higher utilization rates and thus to continue to emit sulphur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide and six cancer-causing pollutants (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel) at current or higher levels. The OCAA urges you to exercise your discretion under CEAA in order to provide Ontario and Canadian residents, as well as the residents of the United States, with the information and review that is necessary to understand the full public health and environmental impacts of the installation of SCRs at OPG's coal-fired plants. II. BACKGROUND On 7 December 2000, the Governments of Canada and the United States signed the Ozone Annex to the 1991 Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement,~ a move that was much welcomed by the OCAA. The Ozone Annex requires fossil fuel power plants in southern Ontario to reduce their smog-causing nitrogen oxides emissions by approximately 50% by 2007.2 OPG has two principal options to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex: a) the replacement of some or all of its coal-fired boilers with high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines; or b) the installation of SCRs on some or all of its coal- fired units. OPG has announced that it intends to achieve compliance through the second option.3 For the reasons that follow, it is the submission of the OCAA that SCRs are a misguided route to compliance with the Ozone Annex. In their view, an environmental assessment of the proposal by a federal review panel would serve the crucial function of comprehensively and objectively demonstrating the very significant environmental weaknesses of OPG's proposal. ~ Government of Canada, News Release, "Canada and the United States Embark on New Era of Cleaner Air", 7 December 2000. 2 Environment Canada, News Release, "Canada and the United States Reach a Draft Agreement to Reduce Transboundary Smog: Statement by the Hon. David Anderson, Minister of the Environment", 13 October 2000. 3 Ontario Power Generation, News Release, "Ontario Power Generation announces major environmental initiative", 14 September 2000. SIERRA LEGAL DE F 1'5N(] E FUND A. SCRs Create Pollution SCRs use ammonia, an extremely hazardous substance, to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions. Ammonia is toxic if swallowed or inhaled, and can irritate or burn the skin, eyes, nose or throat. Ammonia vapors may form an explosive mixture with · 4 air. SCRs inject ammonia into the exhaust stream of coal plants. The ammonia molecules combine with nitrogen oxides emissions to form water and atmospheric nitrogen (a harmless gas). In order to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions to levels that will meet the Ozone Annex standards, an excess amount of ammonia must be injected. The residual ammonia, called "slip", enters the atmosphere and creates other hazardous pollutants: i) fine particulate matter Ammonia slip discharged from SCR's combines with sulphur to form fine particulate matter. Fine particulates, which lodge deeply in the lungs, have been linked to various health problems including asthma and lung disease, and can cause death.5 The Government of Canada has announced its intent to declare ammonia and fine particulate matter as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.6 You have stated that "[f]ine particulate matter in our air from industrial and transportation sources is responsible for 5000 premature deaths per year, increased hospital visits and doctor visits. To effectively reduce the levels of particulate matter in the air we breathe, we must reduce the emissions of the chemical substances that pollute our air.''7 ii) acidification Ammonia contributes to the acidification of soils and lakes.8 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Nox Control On Combined Cycle Turbines: Issues Regarding the Use of Selective Catalytic Reduction in Attainment Areas for Dry Low Nox Natural Gas Combined Cycle Turbines" (4 August 2000), p. 15. This is a draft report for public review. It does not represent official EPA policy. 5 Government of Canada, News Release, "Government of Canada Announces Next Steps in Program to Reduce Particulate Matter, A Primary Component of Smog", 17 July 2000; and Ontario Medical Association, Health Effects of Ground-Level Ozone, Acid Aerosols & Particulate Matter, (May 1998). 6 Government of Canada, News Release", "Government of Canada Announces Next Steps in Program to Reduce Particulate Matter, A Primary Component of Smog", 17 July 2000. 7 Government of Canada, News Release., "Government of Canada Announces Next Steps in Program to Reduce Particulate Matter, A Primary Component of Smog", 17 July 2000. 8 "Nox Controls On Combined Cycle Turbines", pp. 11 -13. SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND iii.) climate change and ozone layer depletion Ammonia emissions, once deposited on soils, are converted by soil microbes to nitrous oxide (N20), a powerful greenhouse gas that also depletes the ozone layer.9 The global warming potential of nitrous oxide is 320 times greater than that of carbon dioxide.~° Thus, because SCRs use ammonia, in addition to being hazardous to OPG workers, they actually create significant new pollution problems as the ammonia contributes both to the formation of fine particulate matter and nitrous oxide, and to the acidification of soils and lakes. B. SCRs would reduce only one of the more than 30 pollutants emitted by OPG's coal plants Although reducing nitrogen oxides emissions, SCRs would not reduce the coal plants' sulphur dioxide (smog and acid rain), mercury (a potent nerve toxin), carbon dioxide (global warming and climate change) and si'x cancer-causing emissions (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel). C. SCRs would permit OPG to increase its coal-fired electricity production and emissions Installation of SCRs would permit OPG to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex and increase its coal-fired electricity production and its emissions of sulphur dioxide, m~rcury, carbon dioxide and six cancer-causing pollutants. According to OPG reports, OPG's coal-fired production and emissions of sulphur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide and six cancer-causing pollutants will increase by up to 26% between 1999 and 2012. A significant portion of the increased coal-fired electricity will be exported to the U.S.A. n D. SCRs are not a cost-effective pollution prevention option OPG is proposing to spend over $250 million to install SCRs on two of the Nanticoke Generating Station's (Lake Erie) eight coal-fired units and on two of the Lambton Generating Station's (Sarnia) four coal-fired units.12 Spending over $250 million to partially reduce the emissions of only one of the more than 30 pollutants released every day by these plants is not a cost-effective use of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars. 9 "Nox Control On Combined Cycle Turbines", p. 14. l0 Voluntary Challenge and Registry Office, Natural Resources Canada, Participant's Handbook, (August 1995), p. 10. n Ontario Power Generation, Towards sustainable development: 1999 Progress Report, pp. 49, 50; and Hagler Bailly Canada, Cost of Early Retirement of Coal Generation, Prepared for Ontario Power Generation, (27 March 2000), pp. 9 & 13. u Ontario Power Generation, News Release, "Ontario Power Generation announces major environmental initiative", 14 September 2000. SIERRA LEGAl. D'EFENCE FUND III. AN ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE OZONE ANNEX Switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas for electricity generation is a cost-effective and comprehensive pollution prevention option to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex and to protect public health and the environment. Replacing OPG's coal boilers with high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines would dramatically reduce or eliminate all of OPG's more than 30 problem emissions: A. Nitrogen Oxides Switching to high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines would reduce nitrogen oxides emissions by over 90%.~3 The Government of Ontario has promised to reduce Ontario's total nitrogen oxides emissions by 45%, relative to 1990 levels, by 2010. However, Ontario does not have a strategy to achieve this goal.14 OPG's coal plants are responsible for 14% of Ontario's nitrogen oxides emissions. As a result, OPG is Ontario's largest corporate source of nitrogen oxides? B. Sulphur Dioxide Switching to natural gas would virtually eliminate sulphur dioxide emissions. Sulphur dioxide is a precursor of smog and acid rain. In June 2000, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) released a report, The Illness Costs of Air Pollution In Ontario, that analysed the health-related costs of smog. According to the OMA report, Ontario's health-related costs of smog are approximately $9.9 billion per year. The major components of the $9.9 billion annual cost are: health care costs ($601 million); lost productivity ($561 million); increased pain and suffering ($4.758 billion); and loss of life ($4.058 billion). Finally, according to the OMA, approximately 1,900 premature deaths were forecast to occur in Ontario in the year 2000 as a result of air pollution? In eastern Canada, sulphur dioxide emissions have been cut in half from 1980 levels. Nevertheless, even with full implementation in 2010 of the current acid rain reduction program, sensitive ecosystems in almost 800,000 square kilometres of southeastern Canada - an area the size of the United Kingdom and France combined ~3 Diener Consulting Inc., Emissions Reduction Study For The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, (November, 1998), p. 12. ~4 Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Countdown Coal, (October, 2000) p. 2. ~5 Countdown Coal, p. 1. ~6 Ontario Medical Association, The Illness Costs of Air Pollution in Ontario: A Summary of Findings, (June 2000). SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE F {_,~ N D - will still receive harmful levels of acid rain. As a result, an estimated 95,000 lakes in southeastern Canada will remain acidified? In October 1998 in Halifax, Canada's federal, provincial and territorial ministers of energy and environment endorsed the Canada- Wide Acid Rain Strategy for ~>ost- 2000. It calls for a 75% reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions in Ontario and Quebec. 18 The Government of Ontario has committed to reducing Ontario's sulphur dioxide emissions by 50% by 2015.~° In 1999 OPG'g five coal plants were responsible for 20% of Ontario's sulphur dioxide emissions.2° OPG is Ontario's second largest corporate source of sulphur dioxide emissions.2~ Thus, reducing OPG's sulphur dioxide emissions is an important component of the plan to reduce acid precipitation in Canada. As noted above, reductions in sulphur dioxide will also benefit human health. The implementation of SCRs will impede the future attainment of the objective of sulphur dioxide emissions reduction. C. Mercury Switching to natural gas would eliminate mercury emissions. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin.22 Infants and children are most at risk from mercury contamination.23 Airborne mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants are converted into methyl mercury when deposited in lakes and rivers. Nearly all the mercury that accumulates in fish tissue is methyl mercury. According to a U.S. National Academy of Sciences report, the "population at highest risk is the offspring of women.., who consume large amounts of fish and seafood." The report concludes that mercury exposure may be responsible for causing neurological problems in more than 60 000 children born each year in the United States.24 Mercury contamination is responsible for 20% to 48% of the consumption restrictions placed on fish in Ontario's Great Lakes. Moreover, mercury ~ Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers of Energy and Environment, Supporting Document For The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for'Post-2000 (19 October 1998), pp. 1,4. ~* Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers of Energy and Environment, The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000 (19 October 1998 ) and Supporting Document For The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000 (19 October 1998), p. 5. t9 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Media Backgrounder, "Enhancing Ontario's air qualilty' (24 January 2000), p. 3. 20 Countdown Coal, pp. 1- 3. 2~ Countdown Coal, p. 1. 22 Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Continental Pollutant Pathways (1997), p. 11. 23 Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Continental Pollutant Pathways (1997), p. 11. 24 U.S. National Academy of Sci6nces, Toxicological Effects of Methylmemury (2000), pp. 275, 276; URL: http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309071402/html/275.html. SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND contamination is responsible for more than 99% of all consumption restrictions placed on fish in Ontario's inland lakes? Because air toxics, such as mercury, can cause such devastating human health and environmental problems, Canada and Ontario have made a commitment to eliminate toxic substances in The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The goal of this agreement is "to achieve the virtual elimination of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances from the Great Lakes ecosystem by encouraging and implementing strategies consistent with the philosophy of zero discharge.''26 In order to reach this goal, Canada and Ontario were required to seek a 90% reduction in the use, generation or release of mercury by the year 2000.27 Between 1988 and 2000, OPG has increased its mercury emissions by 18%, whereas the rest of Ontario has reduced its mercury emissions by 82%. Moreover, OPG's mercury emissions are forecast to increase by a further 16% between 2000 and 2012.28 OPG's coal plants are responsible for nearly 21% of Ontario's mercury emissions? OPG is Ontario's largest corporate source of mercury emissions.3° The investment in SCRs will impede the achievement of the objective of mercury reductions. D. Carbon Dioxide Switching to high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 60%.3~ Carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere, which causes global warming and, as a result, climate change. The David Suzuki Foundation describes climate change as "the most urgent slow2 motion catastrophe facing humankind". This statement is appropriate given the predicted health and environmental impacts of climate change. Climate change is expected to undermine economies and communities by causing more frequent and severe climate extremes such as heat waves, floods, droughts and storms; disrupting agriculture, forests and ecosystems; increasing the spread of infectious diseases (e.g., West Nile virus); and raising sea-levels.32 2s Government of Ontario, Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish: 1999 - 2000 (20* ed., 1999), pp. 11, 12 & 13. 26 Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, (1994), p. 4. 27 Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, (1994), pp. 5, 11. 28 Countdown Coal, p. 17. 29 Countdown Coal, p. 4. 3o Countdown Coal, p. 1. 3 t Emissions Reduction Study, p. 12. 32 Countdown Coal, p. 4. S I E P. R A [.E(;A L DEFENCE FUND In December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, the Canadian government promised to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 6% relative to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. However, in the absence of new policies, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 are forecast to be 27% greater (17% greater in Ontario) than 1990 levels.33 OPG's coal plants are responsible for approximately 19% of Ontario's carbon dioxide emissions? OPG is Ontario's largest corporate source of carbon dioxide emissions? Thus, OPG's carbon dioxide emissions affect Canada's ability to comply with its international obligations. The investment in SCRs will undermine the objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. E. Cancer-Causing Pollutants Conversion to natural gas would eliminate the six cancer-causing pollutants, namely, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel. F. Cost An independent study conducted for the OCAA by Diener Consulting Inc. found that converting 83% of Ontario's coal-fired electricity generating capacity to natural gas would cost residential consumers, on average, $1.86 per month. A study by Hagler Bailly, commissioned by OPG itself, found that Ontario could phase-out all of its coal-fired power plants in 2012 without raising electricity rates at all.36 As you noted in your 17 July 2000 letter to Ontario's Minister of the Environment, switching to natural gas is a pragmatic and cost-effective pollution prevention 'strategy: "All of these developments indicate that large reductions of SO2 [sulphur dioxide], Nox [nitrogen oxides], PM [particulate matter], mercury and CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions will be required from Ontario's electric power generation sector. The conversion or replacement of coal-fired power generation by natural gas using advanced technology appears to be the most practical and cost-effective means of reducing all of the pollutants simultaneously. I urge you, therefore, to move forward on an accelerated program now.''37 33 Countdown Coal, p. 4. s4 Countdown Coal, p. 4. s~ Countdown Coal, p. 1. 36 Countdown Coal, pp. 5 - 7. 37 Letter from the Honourable David Anderson, Federal Minister of the Enviromnent to the Honourable Dan Newman, Ontario's Minister of the Environment, 17 July 2000. SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND G. Summary Replacement of OPG's coal-fired boilers with high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines, instead of the installation of SCRs, is a superior option for Ontario to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex for the following reasons: i) switching to natural gas will not lead to a net increase in any pollutants; ii) switching to natural gas will dramatically reduce or eliminate all of the more than 30 pollutants associated with coal-fired electricity; and iii) switching to natural gas is a low cost ~ption to achieve large reductions in Ontario's total nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, mercury and carbon dioxide emissions. IV. THE LAW Canadian Environmental Assessment Act As you know, CEliA permits the Minister of the Environment to refer a project to a review panel to determine the environmental effects of a project where a federal EA is not otherwise required under the Act. Your statutory authority to require a federal environmental assessment of this project derives from at least three provisions of the CEAA: A. Section 47. - International environmental effects Section 47 of CE~lA authorizes you to refer OPG's proposed installation of SCRs to a review panel based on the fact that the project will result in significant adverse environmental impacts in the United States. The relevant parts of the provision appear thus: 47. (1) Where no power, duty or function referred to in section 5 or conferred by or under any other Act of Parliament or regulation is to be exercised or performed by a federal authority in relation to a project that is to be carried out in Canada or on federal lands and the Minister is of the opinion that the project may cause significant adverse environmental effects occurring both outside Canada and outside those federal lands, the Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs may refer the project to a mediator or a review panel in accordance with section 29 for an assessment of the environmental effects of the project occurring both outside Canada and outside federal lands. According to Attomey-GeneraI Eliot Spitzer of the State of New York, "emissions from large coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources in eastem Canada are among the leading contributors to acid precipitation, which is causing serious S I EI~.RA I. F. G A L l) E F E N C E F[JND environmental damage and destruction in the Adirondack Park region of New York, the largest wilderness area in the eastern United States"? Mr. Spitzer's claim is supported by a recent Environment Canada report that concludes that emissions from the Nanticoke Generating Station regularly cross Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and enter the United States? Given the proximity of the Lambton and Nanticoke Generating Stations to the United States and the ability of fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, mercury and carbon dioxide to travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometres,4° it is clear that the installation of SCRs, instead of the conversion of the coal plants to natural gas, will have adverse health and environmental consequences in the United States. Further, as indicated above, if the SCR proposal proceeds as planned and OPG does not convert its coal-fired generating capacity to natural gas, it will frustrate Canada's ability to meet its international obligations. OPG is Ontario's largest corporate source of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury emissions, and its second largest corporate source of sulphur dioxide emissions.4! In the absence of new environmental policies, OPG's coal-fired electricity production and emissions of carbon dioxide, mercury and sulphur dioxide are forecast to increase by up to 26% between 1999 and 2012.42 Thus, failure to convert OPG's Lambton and Nanticoke Generating Stations to cleaner-burning natural gas will impede Canada's efforts to honour its international agreements. A federal environmental assessment would objectively and comprehensively document and review all of these important environmental concerns on a matter with significant international implications. B. Section 48 - Environmental effects on lands of federal interest (reserve lands) Section 48 of the CEAA authorizes you to refer OPG's proposed installation of SCRs to a federal environmental assessment based on the fact that the project will result in significant adverse environmental impacts on the air quality on First Nations lands. The relevant parts of the provision appear thus: 48. (1) Where no power, duty or function referred to in section 5 or conferred by or under any other Act of Parliament or regulation is to be 3g Letter to Madeline Albright, U.S. Secretary of State, from Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, State of New York, July 5, 2000. 39 S.M. Daggupaty and P. Cheung, Air Quality Research Branch, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada, Air Parcel traiectories from Nanticoke - a preliminary study. 40 Commission For Environmental Cooperation, Continental Pollutant Pathways, (1997), p. 12; and U.S. EPA, "Nox Control On Combined Cycle Turbines", p. 14. n~ Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Countdown Coal, (October 2000), p. 1. 42 Ontario Power Generation, Towards sustainable development: 1999 Progress Report, pp. 49, 50; and Hagler Bailly Canada, Cost of Early Retirement of Coal Generation, Prepared for Ontario Power Generation, (March 27, 2000), pp. 9 & 13. 10 SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND exercised or performed by a federal authority in relation to a project that is to be carried out in Canada and the Minister is of the opinion that the project may cause significant adverse environmental effects on (a) lands in a reserve that is set apart for the use and benefit of a band and that is subject to the Indian Act, the Minister may refer the project to a mediator or a review panel in accordance with section 29 for an assessment of the environmental effects of the project on those lands. The emission of fine particulates caused by the use of SCR technology, as well as the continued emission of unacceptably high levels of other air contaminants caused by the failure of OPG to convert its coal-fired generating stations to natural gas, will have adverse public health and environmental consequences in First Nations communities, and on lands reserved for First Nations, throughout the southern Ontario region. C. Section 28 - Referral where warranted by reason of public concerns Section 28 of CEAA authorizes you to refer OPG's proposed installation of SCRs to a federal environmental assessment review panel based on public concerns. The relevant part of the provision appears thus: 28. Where at any time the Minister is of the opinion that (b) public concerns warrant a reference to a mediator or a review panel, the Minister may, after offering to consult with the jurisdiction, within the meaning of subsection 12(5), where the project is to be carded out and after consulting with the responsible authority or, where there is no responsible authority in relation to the project, the appropriate federal authority, refer the project to a mediator or a review panel in accordance with section 29. In this case, given the severe and documented environmental and health impacts of air pollution in Ontario, the widely acknowledged need to convert coal-fired plants to natural gas, and the breadth of support for this request, public concerns clearly warrant referral of this project to a review panel for a full public heating. As noted above, the proposed project impacts upon areas of federal authority including Canada's international agreements, and its relations with the United States and First Nations lands and people. The OCAA submits that these harmful effects on federal responsibilities amply justify the exercise of federal authority to ensure that the full environmental implications of the project are comprehensively and objectively documented and reviewed before it proceeds. 11 SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND Finally, among the many harmful contaminants that will be discharged or that will continue to be discharged by OPG as a result of the installation of SCRs are mercury and ammonia, both of which cause harm to fish and fish habitat. OPGs discharge activities appear to contravene both s. 35(1) and s. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act. Section 35(1) prohibits the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, while s. 36(3) prohibits the deposit in waters frequented by fish of substances that will be harmful to the health of fish. According to s. 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat in contravention of s. 35(1) is only lawful if authorized by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or if authorized by regulations enacted pursuant to that Act. According to s. 5(1)(d) of CEAA, any such ministerial or regulatory authorizations must be subjected to a federal environmental assessment. The effects of OPG's activities on fisheries are thus additional matters of public concern that fall within federal authority, and that serve to further justify referring the SCR proposal to a federal environmental assessment under s. 28 of CEAA. D. Joint Review Panel The OCAA has also made a request for a provincial environmental assessment of the OPG's SCR proposal pursuant to the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. As you know, s. 40 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act allows for the establishment of a joint review panel with a province where the referral of a project to a review panel is "permitted" under CEAA. This provision is complemented by s. 3.1 of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. which deals with harmonization: The OCAA would support the establishment of such a joint panel. However, you should be aware that Ontario is planning shortly to introduce amendments to its environmental assessment regime that will exempt OPG from the mandatory environmental assessment to which it would otherwise have to subject its SCR proposal. The OCAA has also learned that OPG has requested that the SCR project be exempted from the current provincial regime in the event that it proceeds prior to the introduction of the new regulations. As you may know, Minister Newman has the authority to grant this request if he so chooses. These circumstances serve to underline the importance of subjecting the SCR proposal to a federal environmental assessment. V. CONCLUSION As federal Minister of the Environment, you have ample legislative authority under 'CEAA to'ensure that OPG's proposed installation of SCRs undergoes a thorough public environmental assessment process. As explained above, such a process is necessary in order to ensure that the effects of using ammonia to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions, as well as the effects of failing to replace Ontario's coal-fired boilers with high-efficiency natural gas turbines, are 12 SIERRA LEC;A I~ DEFENCE FUND comprehensively and objectively documented and reviewed. It will also result in the full, and inevitably favourable, consideration of the alternative of converting to natural gas. It is the submission of the OCAA that OPG's SCR strategy is a short-sighted attempt to comply with the Ozone Annex at the expense of overall air quality in Ontario, Canada and the United States of America. Ultimately, OPG's proposal will foul the breath of fresh air that was the Ozone Annex. We urge you to exercise your authority to ensure that the costs and benefits of the competing options for Ontario to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex are fully understood by the people of Ontario, Canada, and the United States before any irrevocable decisions are taken. ely,. _ ~ l~lacCl~llum Proj ectoLawyer CC. The Honourable Dan Newman, M.P.P. Jack Gibbons, Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance 13 SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND January 31, 2001 The Honourable Dan Newman, MPP Minister of the Environment 135 St. Clair Avenue West Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5 Dear Minister Newman: Re: Request for Environmental Assessment Board hearing with respect to Ontario Power Generation's Proposal to Install Selective Catalytic Reduction Units on its Lambton and Nanticoke Generating Stations 311 St. Patrick Strect Su itc 9011 Toronto. ON Canada. M5T 3A3 416.368.7533 (SLDF) bas-: 416.363.2746 E-maiL- sld fort@sic r ralegal.~}rg [l?bsite: www.sierralcgal.org I. INTRODUCTION I act for the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA), which is a coalition of 76 organizations including municipalities, utilities, public health and environmental organizations, unions, faith communities, and cottager associations representing over 6 million Ontarians. The OCAA urges you to ensure that Ontario Power Generation's (OPG's) proposal to install selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units on four of its coal-fired generating units undergoes a full public environmental assessment. As you know, the Environmental Assessment Act ("the Act") as it currently stands requires OPG to perform an environmental assessment of the SCR proposal before it can proceed. It has come to the attention of the OCAA that OPG is seeking a declaration order under s. 3.2 of the Act, which would exempt the SCR proposal from undergoing an environmental assessment. The OCAA strongly urges you to refuse OPG's request for such an exemption. If you do refuse OPG's request, once OPG has filed its application for approval of the SCR proposal, the OCAA intends to make a formal request pursuant to section 7.2 of the Act that the application be referred to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a full public hearing. SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND The proposed project will result in significant short- and long-term environmental impacts that are readily avoidable through the adoption of reasonable alternatives. The OCAA submits that the environmental impacts of the SCR project and its alternatives should be fully and publicly explored before the project proceeds. The OCAA has also reviewed the proposed new regulations governing environmental assessment requirements for the electricity sector, and understands that the SCR project would not be required to undergo an environmental assessment under these proposed regulations. Given the very significant environmental impacts associated with the SCR proposal, the OCAA urges you to reconsider the proposed regulations and ensure that projects like this one will not escape scrutiny. The project and its effects The proposed project will result in significant adverse public health and environmental impacts for two principal reasons. First, the installation and operation of SCR units requires the use of ammonia, an extremely hazardous substance. Of great concern is that the residual ammonia from the catalytic process will lead both to the creation of fine particulate matter and nitrous oxide, and to the acidification of soils and lakes. Second, the installation of SCRs would permit OPG to continue to operate its coal plants at their current or higher utilization rates and thus to continue to emit sulphur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide and six cancer-causing pollutants (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel) at current or higher levels. The OCAA urges YOu to ensure that the SCR proposal is subjected to an environmental assessment in order to provide Ontario and Canadian residents, as well as the residents of the United States, with the information and review that is necessary to understand the full public health and environmental impacts of the installation of SCRs at OPG's coal-fired plants. II. BACKGROUND On 7 December 2000, the Governments of Canada and the United States signed the Ozone Annex to the 1991 Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement,~ a move that was much welcomed by the OCAA. The Ozone Annex requires fossil fuel power plants in southern Ontario to reduce their smog-causing nitrogen oxides emissions by approximately 50% by 2007.2 ~ Government of Canada, News Release, "Canada and the United States Embark on New Era of Cleaner Air", 7 December 2000. 2 Environment Canada, News Release, "Canada and the United States Reach a Draft Agreement to RedUce Transboundary Smog: Statement by the Hon. David Anderson Minister of the Environment", 13 October 2000. SIERRA LEGAl. l) E F I£ N C F['NI) OPG has two principal options to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex: a) the replacement of some or all of its coal-fired boilers with high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines; or b) the installation of SCRs on some or all of its coal- fired units. OPG has announced that it intends to achieve compliance through the second option.3 For the reasons that follow, it is the submission of the OCAA that SCRs are a misguided route to compliance with the Ozone Annex. In its view, an environmental assessment of the proposal by the Environmental Review Tribunal would serve the crucial function of comprehensively and objectively demonstrating the very significant environmental weaknesses of OPG's proposal. A. SCRs Create Pollution SCRs use ammonia, an extremely hazardous substance, to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions. Ammonia is toxic if swallowed or inhaled, and can irritate or bum the skin, eyes, nose or throat. Ammonia vapors may form an explosive mixture with · 4 alt. SCRs inject ammonia into the exhaust stream of coal plants. The ammonia molecules combine with nitrogen oxides emissions to form water and atmospheric nitrogen (a harmless gas). In order to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions to levels that will meet the Ozone Annex standards, an excess amount of ammonia must be injected. The residual ammonia, called "slip", enters the atmosphere and creates other hazardous pollutants: fine particulate matter Ammonia slip discharged from SCRs combines with sulphur to form fine particulate matter. Fine particulates, which lodge deeply in the lungs, have been linked to various health problems including asthma and lung disease, and can cause death,s The Govemment of Canada has announced its intent to declare ammonia and fine particulate matter as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.6 3 Ontario Power Generation, News Release, "Ontario Power Generation announces major environmental initiative", 14 September 2000. 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Nox Control On Combined Cycle Turbines: Issues Regarding the Use of Selective Catalytic Reduction in Attainment Areas for Dry Low Nox Natural Gas Combined Cycle Turbines" (4 August 2000), p. 15. This is a draft report for public review. It does not represent official EPA policy. 5 Government of Canada, News Release, "Government of Canada Announces Next Steps in Program to Reduce Particulate Matter, A Primary Component of Smog", 17 July 2000; and Ontario Medical Association, Health Effects of Ground-Level Ozone, Acid Aerosols & Particulate Matter, (May 1998). ~ Government of Canada, News Release", "Government of Canada Announces Next Steps in Program to Reduce Particulate Matter, A Primary Component of Smog", 17 July 2000. Federal Environment Minister David Anderson has stated that [f]ine particulate matter in our air from industrial and transportation soumes is responsible for 5000 premature deaths per year, increased hospital visits and doctor visits. To effectively reduce the levels of particulate matter in the air we breathe, we must reduce the emissions of the chemical substances that pollute our air.? ii) acidification Ammonia contributes to the acidification of soils and lakes.8 iii) climate change and ozone layer depletion S I E II RA F 1. IN i) Once deposited on soils, ammonia emissions are converted by soil microbes to nitrous oxide (N20), which is a powerful greenhouse gas that also depletes the ozone layer.9 The global wamdng potential of nitrous oxide is 320 times greater than that of carbon dioxide, l0 Thus, because SCRs use ammonia, in addition to being hazardous to OPG workers, they actually create significant new pollution problems as the ammonia contributes both to the formation of fine particulate matter and nitrous oxide, and to the acidification of soils and lakes. B. SCRs would reduce only one of the more than 30 pollutants emitted by OPG's coal plants Although reducing nitrogen oxides emissions, SCRs would not reduce the coal plants' sulphur dioxide (smog and acid rain), mercury (a potent nerve toxin), carbon dioxide (global wanning and.climate change) and six cancer-causing emissions (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel). C. SCRs would permit OPG to increase its coal-fired electricity production and emissions Installation of SCRs would permit OPG to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex and increase its coal-fired electricity production and its emissions of sulphur dioxide, mercury, carbon dioxide and six cancer-causing pollutants. According to OPG reports, OPG's coal-fired production and emissions of sulphur dioxide, 7 Government of Canada, News Release, "Government of Canada Announces Next Steps in Program to Reduce Particulate Matter, A Primary Component of Smog", 17 July 2000. 8 "Nox Controls On Combined Cycle Turbines", pp. 11 -t3. 9 "Nox Control On Combined Cycle Turbines", p. 14. · ~0 Voluntary Challenge and Registiy Office, Natural Resources Canada, Participant's Handbook (August 1995), p. 10. SIERRA I~EGAI. I) E F EN(2F. I: [ l N I) mercury, carbon dioxide and six cancer-causing pollutants will increase by up to 26% between 1999 and 2012. A significant portion of the increased coal-fired electricity will be exported to the U.S.A.tt D. SCRs are not a cost-effective pollution prevention option OPG is proposing to spend over $250 million to install SCRs on two of the Nanticoke Generating Station's (Lake Erie)' eight coal-fired units and on two of the Lambton Generating Station's (Samia) four coal-fired units? Spending over $250 million to partially reduce the emissions of only one of the more than 30 pollutants released every day by these plants is not a cost-effective use of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars. III. AN ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE OZONE ANNEX Switching from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas for electricity generation is a cost-effective and comprehensive pollution prevention option to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex and to protect public health and the environment. Replacing OPG's coal boilers with high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines would dramatically reduce or eliminate all of OPG's more than 30 problem emissions: A. Nitrogen Oxides Switching to high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines would reduce nitrogen oxides emissions by over 90%.~3 The Government of Ontario has promised to reduce Ontario's total nitrogen oxides emissions by 45%, relative to 1990 levels, by 2010. However, Ontario does not have a strategy to achieve this goal.~4 OPG's coal plants are responsible for 14% of Ontario's nitrogen oxides emissions. As a result, OPG is Ontario's largest corporate source of nitrogen oxides? B. Sulphur Dioxide Switching to natural gas would virtually eliminate sulphur dioxide emissions. t~ Ontario Power Generation, Towards sustainable development: 1999 Progress Report, pp. 49, 50; and Hagler Bailly Canada, Cost of Early Retirement of Coal Generation, Prepared for Ontario Power Generation (27 March 2000), pp. 9 & 13. t2 Ontario Power Generation, News Release, "Ontario Power Generation announces major environmental initiative", 14 September 2000. t3 Diener Consulting Inc., Emissions Reduction Study For The Ontario Clean Air Alliance (November, 1998), p. 12. ~4 Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Countdown Coal (October, 2000) p. 2. ~5 Countdown Coal, p. 1. SIERRA LEGAL DEI*ENCE FUND Sulphur dioxide is a precursor of smog and acid rain. In June 2000, the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) released a report, The Illness Costs of Air Pollution In Ontario, that analysed the health-related costs of smog. According to the OMA report, Ontario's health-related costs of smog are approximately $9.9 billion per year. The major components of the $9.9 billion annual cost are: health care costs ($601 million); lost productivity ($561 million); increased pain and suffering ($4.758 billion); and loss of life ($4.058 billion). Finally, according to the OMA, approximately 1,900 premature deaths were forecast to occur in Ontario in the year 2000 as a result of air pollution? In eastern Canada, sulphur dioxide emissions have been cut in half from 1980 levels. Nevertheless, even with full implementation in 2010 of the current acid rain reduction program, sensitive ecosystems in almost 800,000 square kilometres of southeastern Canada - an area the size of the United Kingdom and France combined - will still receive harmful levels of acid rain. As a result, an estimated 95,000 lakes in southeastern Canada will remain acidified, i? In October 1998 in Halifax, Canada's federal, provincial and territorial ministers of energy and environment endorsed the Canada- Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post- 2000. It calls for a 75% reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions in Ontario and Quebec.~8 The Government of Ontario has committed to reducing Ontario's sulphur dioxide emissions by 50% by 20157 In 1999, OPG's five coal plants were responsible for 20% of Ontario's sulphur dioxide emissions.2° OPG is Ontario's second largest corporate source of sulphur dioxide emissions?~ Thus, reducing OPG's sulphur dioxide emissions is an important component of the plan to reduce acid precipitation in Canada. As noted above, reductions in sulphur dioxide will also benefit human health. The implementation of SCRs will impede the future attainment of the objective of sulphur dioxide emissions reduction. C. Mercury Switching to natural gas would eliminate mercury emissions. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin.22 Infants and children are most at risk from mercury contamination? ~6 Ontario Medical Association, The Illness Costs of Air Pollution in Ontario: A Summary of Findings (June 2000). 17 Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers of Energy and Environment, Supporting Document For The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000 (19 October 1998), pp. 1, 4. ~8 Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers of Energy and Environment, The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000, (I 9 October 1998) and Supporting Document For The Canada-Wide Acid Rain Strategy for Post-2000, (19 October 1998), p. 5. ~9 Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Media Backgrounder, "Enhancing Ontario's air quality", (24 January 2000), p. 3. 2o Countdown Coal, pp. 1- 3. 21 Countdown Coal, p. 1. 22 Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Continental pOllutant Pathways (1997), p. 11. 23 Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Continental Pollutant Pathways (1997), p. 11. SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND Airborne mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants are converted into methyl mercury when deposited in lakes and rivers. Nearly all the mercury that accumulates in fish tissue is methyl mercury. According to a U.S. National Academy of Sciences report, the "population at highest risk is the offspring of women.., who consume large amounts of fish and seafood." The report concludes that mercury exposure may be responsible for causing neurological problems in more than 60 000 children bom each year in the United States.24 Mercury contamination is responsible for 20% to 48% of the consumption restrictions placed on fish in Ontario's Great Lakes. Moreover, mercury contamination is responsible for more than 99% of all consumption restrictions placed on fish in Ontario's inland lakes.25 Because air toxics, such as mercury, can cause such devastating human health and environmental problems, Canada and Ontario have made a commitment to eliminate toxic substances in The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. The goal of this agreement is "to achieve the virtual elimination of persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances from the Great Lakes ecosystem by encouraging and implementing strategies consistent with the philosophy of zero discharge.'':/a In order to reach this goal, Canada and Ontario were required to seek a 90% reduction in the use, generation or release of mercury by the year 2000.:/7 Between 1988 and 2000, OPG has increased its mercury emissions by 18%, whereas the rest of Ontario has reduced its mercury emissions by 82%. Moreover, OPG's mercury emissions are forecast to increase by a further 16% between 2000 and 2012.28 OPG's coal plants are responsible for nearly 21% of Ontario's mercury emissions? OPG is Ontario's largest corporate source of mercury emissions.3° The investment in SCRs will impede the achievement of the objective of mercury reductions. D. Carbon Dioxide Switching to high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 60%? Carbon dioxide is the principal 24 U.S.' National Academy of Sciences, Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (2000), pp. 275, 276; URL: http://www.nap.edu/openbook]0309071402/html/275.tttml. 25 Government of Ontario, Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish: 1999 - 2000 (20th ed., 1999), pp. 11, 12 & 13. 26 Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (1994), p. 4. 27 Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (1994), pp. 5, 11. 28 Countdown Coal, p. 17. 29 Countdown Coal, p. 4. 3o Countdown Coal, p. 1. SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND greenhouse gas trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere, which causes global warming and, as a result, climate change. The David Suzuki Foundation describes climate change as "the most urgent slow- motion catastrophe facing humankind". This statement is appropriate given the predicted health and environmental impacts of climate change. Climate change is expected to undermine economies and communities by causing more frequent and severe climate extremes such as heat waves, floods, droughts and storms; disrupting agriculture, forests and ecosystems; increasing the spread of infectious diseases (e.g., West Nile virus); and raising sea-levels.32 In December 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, the Canadian government promised to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 6% relative to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. However, in the absence of new policies, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 are forecast to be 27% greater (17% greater in Ontario) than 1990 levels.33 OPG's coal plants are responsible for approximately 19% of Ontario's carbon dioxide emissions? OPG is Ontario's largest cmporate source of carbon dioxide emissions? Thus, OPG's carbon dioxide emissions affect Canada's ability to comply with its international obligations. The investment in SCRs will undermine the objective of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. E. Cancer-Causing Pollutants Conversion to natural gas would eliminate the six cancer-causing pollutants, namely, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel. F. Cost An independent study conducted for the OCAA by Diener Consulting Inc. found that converting 83% of Ontario's coal-fired electricity generating capacity to natural gas would cost residential consumers, on average, $1.86 per month. A study by Hagler Bailly, commissioned by OPG itself, found that Ontario could phase-out all of its coal-fired power plants in 2012 without raising electricity rates at all.36 As the federal Minister of the Environment noted in his 17 July 2000 letter to you, switching to natural gas is a pragmatic and cost-effective pollution prevention strategy: 3~ Emissions Reduction Study, p. 12. 32 Countdown Coal, p. 4. 33 Countdown Coa.l, p. 4. 34 Countdown Coal, p. 4. 35 Countdown Coal, p. 1. 36 Countdown Coal, pp. 5 - 7. "All of these developments indicate that large reductions of SO2 [sulphur dioxide], Nox [nitrogen oxides], PM [particulate matter], mercUry and CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions will be required from Ontario's electric power generation sector. The conversion or replacement of coal-fired power generation by natural gas using advanced technology appears to be the most practical and cost-effective means o f reducing all of the pollutants simultaneously. I urge you, therefore, to move forward on an accelerated program now.''37 G. Summary Replacement of OPG's coal-fired boilers with high-efficiency natural gas combined-cycle turbines, instead of the installation of SCRs, is a superior option for Ontario to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex for the following reasons: SIERRA i) LEGAl. O E F E N (: ~: ii) FUND iii) switching to natural gas will not lead to a net increase in any pollutants; switching to natural gas will dramatically reduce or eliminate all of the more than 30 pollutants associated with coal-fired electricity; and switching to natural gas is a low cost option to achieve large reductions in Ontario's total nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, mercury and carbon dioxide emissions. IV. THE LAW According to s. 3 of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Act applies to: (a) enterprises or activities or proposals, plans or programs in respect of enterprises or activities by or on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Ontario or by a public body or public bodies or by a municipality or municipalities; Section 3 of Regulation 334 under the Act provides that OPG is a "public body" for the purposes ofs. 3 of the Act. OPG has publicly announced that it intends to install SCR units. The installation of SCR technology clearly constitutes a "proposal" within the meaning of the Act. Thus, ifOPG wishes to proceed with this proposal, it must perform an environmental assessment and apply for approval under the Act. In the alternative, it must request and receive a declaration order pursuant to s. 3.2 of the Act exempting it from the requirements of an environmental assessment. Letter from the Honourable David Anderson, Federal Minister of the Environment to the Honourable Dan Newman, Ontario's Minister of the Environment, 17 July 2000. S I ERI~,A I. F~ GA 1. I)F~F EIxJ(-~I:~ FIEND As you are aware, OPG is seeking an exemption from the requirements of an environmental assessment in order to avoid a comprehensive and objective review of its flawed proposal. In the language ofs. 3.2 of the Act, the OCAA submits that such an exemption is clearly not "in the public interest", having regard to: (a) the extensive "damage" and "injury", detailed above, to human health and the environment that will be caused and continued by the proposal, and; Co) the purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act (s. 2 of the Act), which is the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment. It is submitted that by the terms ofs. 3.2, the declaration order should not be granted, and that OPG should be required to apply for approval of its proposal pursuant to s. 5(1) of the Act. By the te~ms of the Act, OPG would then have to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with s. 6. l, selected parts of which provide as follows: (1) The proponent shall prepare an environmental assessment for an undertaking in accordance with the approved terms of reference. (2) Subject to section (3), the environmental assessment must consist of, (a) a description of the purpose of the undertaking; (b) a description of and a statement of the rationale for, (i) the undertaking; (ii) the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking, and (iii) the alternatives to the undertaking; (3) The approved terms of reference may provide that the environmental assessment consist of information other than that required by subsection (2). The OCAA requests that OPG be required to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with s. 6.1 (2) and that the application once complete be referred to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a full public hearing. A. Minister's referral to the Environmental Review Tribunal According to s. 7.2: (3) Any person may request that the Minister refer the proponent's application or a matter that relates to it to the Tribunal for hearing and decision. (4) A request under subsection (3) must be made in writing to the Ministry before the deadline for submitting comments on the review. 10 SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND As stated at the outset, once OPG applies for approval to proceed with the SCR project, the OCAA intends to make a request pursuant to s. 7.2(3) of the Act that the application be referred to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a full public hearing. Given the very extensive damage to public health, the environment, and the economy in Ontario resulting from air pollution, and the very significant contribution to that pollution made by OPG's coal-fired plants, it is imperative that the SCR proposal undergo a comprehensive public heating. This hearing should consider both the direct impacts of SCR technology (i.e., the release of ammonia with resulting formation of fine particulates, acidification, etc.) and the broader implications of OPG's continued failure to convert to natural gas. The people of Ontaho have a right to be involved in the evaluation of this project, as it will undoubtedly determine OPG's course of conduct in future years, and thus also the level of air contamination to which Ontarians will be exposed. Finally, as you know, the SCR proposal would not be subjected to an environmental assessment under the proposed new environmental assessment regulations for the electricity sector. The OCAA submits that a project such as this one, with its very significant and potentially long-term environmental implications, is precisely the kind of proposal that should undergo environmental assessment. They urge you to ensure that the regulation as enacted will require proposals such as this one to undergo an environmental assessment.. B. Joint Review Panel The OCAA has also made a request for a federal environmental assessment of the OPG's SCR proposal, since the project will result in international impacts and impacts on First Nations lands, and since public concerns warrant a federal assessment. As you know, s. 40 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act allows for the establishment of a joint review panel with a province where the referral of a project to a review panel is "permitted" under CEAA. This provision is complemented by s. 3.1 of the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, which deals with hm monization. The OCAA would support the establishment of a joint panel. V. CONCLUSION As Minister of the Environment, you have the authority to ensure that OPG's proposed installation of SCR technology undergoes a thorough public environmental assessment process. As explained above, such a process is necessary in order to ensure that the effects of using ammonia to reduce nitrogen oxides emissions, as well as the effects of failing to replace Ontario's coal-fired boilers with high-efficiency natural gas turbines, are comprehensively and objectively documented and reviewed. It will also result in 11 SIERRA LEGAL DEFENCE FUND the full, and inevitably favourable, consideration of the alternative of converting to natural gas. It is the submission of the OCAA that OPG's SCR strategy is a short-sighted attempt to comply with the Ozone Annex at the expense of overall air quality in Ontario, Canada and the United States of America. Ultimately, OPG's proposal will foul the breath of fresh air that was the Ozone Annex. The OCAA urges you to exercise your authority to ensure that the costs and benefits of the competing options for Ontario to achieve compliance with the Ozone Annex are fully understood by the people of Ontario, Canada, and the United States before any irrevocable decisions are made. ~qinqerely,.~ /~ ^ Ra ~37n~nd Mac.allure Pro~t Lawyer CC. The Honourable David Anderson, M.P., P.C. Jack Gibbons, Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance 12 ~OntariO utility in pollution battle POLLUlIOR/rom ~a~e Al ~ ante, a group lobbying for convcr ONTARIO CLEAN AIR QUALITY ISSUES FACT SHEET #(~ AIR ALLIANCE www. cleanairalliance.org Selective Catalytic · OPG's plan Reduction promises more pollution On December 7, 2000 the governments of Canada and the United States signed the Ozone Annex to the 1991 Canada- United States Air Quality Agreement. The Ozone Annex requires fossil fuel power plants in southern Ontario to reduce their smog-causing nitrogen oxides emissions by approximately 50% by 2007. The largest industrial source of nitrogen oxides emissions in Ontario are the five coal-fired power plants operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG). OPG's Nanticoke plant on Lake Erie is the largest coal-fired power plant in North America and emits thousands of tonnes of nitrogen oxides each year. In order to comply with the conditions of the newly signed Ozone Annex, OPG has announced that it will install selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units on four of its 16 coal-fired boiler units in southern Ontario, inclUding two units at Nanticoke and two at its Lambten plant in Sarnia. Installation of SCRs will be costly (OPG estimates it will cost $250 million) and largely ineffective in dea]ing with OPG's overall pollution problems - SCRs will not reduce emissions of any pollutants other than nitrogen oxides. The SCR units themselves will also create additional pollu- tion problems: · the installation and operation of SCR units will require the use of ammonia, an extremely hazardous substance. Ammonia is toxic if swallowed or inhaled and can irritate or burn the skin, eyes, nose or throat. Ammonia vapors may form an explosive mixture when mixed with air. · ammonia that does not combine with nitrogen oxides in the SCR process leads to the creation and release of fine particulate matter, a serious health threat, and nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, and can cause the acidification of soils and lakes. · the installation of SCRs would permit OPG to continue to operate its coal plants at current or even nigher output rates and to continue to emit sulphur dioxide, mercury, greenhouse gas and six cancer-causing pollutants (ar- senic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead and nickel) at current or even higher levels. How SCRs work SCRs inject ammonia into the exhaust stream of coal plants. The ammonia molecules combine with nitrogen oxides emissions to form water and atmospheric nitrogen (a harmless gas). But in order to reduce nitrogen oxides emis- sions to levels that meet OzoneAnnex standards, an excess amount of ammonia must be injected. Tiffs extra unused ammonia, called %lip", enters the atmosphere and creates other hazardous palIutanis. Therefore, in addition to hazards to workers, the use of ammonia in SCRs actually creates pollution through the formation of fine particulate matter and nitrous oxide. The impact of releasing ammonia Fine particulate matter Ammonia slip discharged from SCRs combines with sulphur (also emitted by coal plants) to form fine particulate matter. Fine particulates, wnich lodge deeply in the lungs, have been linked to various health problems including asthma, lung disease and death. The Government of Canada has announced its intent to declare ammonia and fine particulate matter toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Federal Environment Minister David Anderson has stated that "Fine particulate matter in our air from industrial and transportation sources is responsible for 5,000 premature deaths per year, increased hospital visits and doctor visits. To effectively reduce the levels of particulate matter in the air we breathe, we must reduce the emissions of the chemical substances that pollute our air.' Acidification Ammonia contributes to the acidification of soils and lakes. Climate Change and Ozone Layer Depletion Ammonia emissions that land on soils are converted by soil microbes to nitrous oxide (N~O), which is both a powerful greenhouse gas and a stratospheric ozone destroyer. The global warming potential of nitrous oxide is 320-times greater than that of carbon dioxide. continued ouer,,. ONTARIO CLEAN AIR ALLIANCE MEMBER LIST The following cities, utilities, organizations and associations have endorsed the need for emission caps to reduce Ontario's total (domestic and imported) electricity, related greenhouse gas, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and air toxics emissions and joined the Alliance: CITIES Guelph Kitchener Markham Pete[borough Regional Municipality of Durham Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Municipality of Peel Regional Municipality of Waterloo Toronto Windsor UTILITIES Alfred-Plantagenet Hydro Arran-Elderslie Public Utilities Commission Enwave District Energy Limited Lucan-Granton Hydro Mississippi River Power Corporation Oshawa Public Utilities Commission Peterborough Utilities Commission Rockwood Hydro-Electric Sudbury Hydro Toronto Hydro Veridian Corporation ORGANIZATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS Algoma Manitoulin Environmental Awareness Algoma Manitoulin Nuclear Awareness Allergy/Asthma Information Association Association of Local Public Health Agencies Bikeshare Bruce Peninsula Environment Group Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy Canadian Institute of Child Health CAW Canada* Canadian Unitarians For Social Justice, South Peel Chapter Citizens Advisory Committee on Air Quality - Watedon Citizens Environmental Alliance of Southwestern Ontario Citizens for Renewable Energy** Citizens Network on Waste Management Clean North Clear the Air Community Action Parkdale East Conservation Council of Ontario Conserver Society of Hamilton and District, Hamilton Chapter Consumers Association of Canada (Ontario) EarthDay Canada Earth Works Echo Lake Association Energy Probe Evergreen Foundation Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations For A Safe Environment Grassroots Woodstock Greenest City Kingston Environmental Action Project Lakeshore Area Multi-Services Project Inc. Metro Toronto Pesticide Action League North Toronto Green Community Ontado College of Family Physicians Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association Ontario Forestry Association Ontario Lung Association Ontario Public Health Association Ontario Public Interest Research Group McMaster University Ontado Public Interest Research Group Guelph University Ontario Public Interest Research Group University of Toronto Ontario Public Interest Research Group Queen's University Ontario Society for Environmental Education Pesticide Action Group/VVaterloo Pollution Probe South Riverdale Community Health Centre Thames Region Ecological Association The Sien*a Club of Canada Torrie Smith Associates Toronto Environmental Alliance The United Chumh of Canada Wastewise W~ldlands League Youth Challenge International *CAW Canada is opposed to the p[ivatization of Ontario Hydro ** CFRE is opposed to the re-opening of the laid- up nuclear reactors Sample Draft Resolutions 1. The City/Town of requests Canada's Minister of the Environment to exercise his authority under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to refer to an environmental assessment review panel Ontario Power Generation's proposal to install selective catalytic reduction units on its Lambton and Nanticoke coal- fired power plants. The City/Town of further requests that the environmental assessment include full consideration of the alternative of conversion to natural gas. 2. The City/Town of requests Ontario's Minister of the Environment to require Ontario Power Generation to prepare an environmental assessment, in accordance with section 6.1(2) of the Environmental Assessment Act, of its proposal to install selective catalytic reduction units on its Lambton and Nanticoke coal- fired power plants. In particular, the City/Town of requests that the environmental assessment include full consideration of the alternative of conversion to natural gas. Furthermore, the City/Town of requests that the completed assessnient be referred to the Environmental Review Tribunal for a full public hearing. · THE FUND. February 1, 2001 Mayor Wayne Thomson Mayor's Office 4310 Queens St. Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E6X5 Dear Mayor Thomson: The Fresh Air Fund is preparing fbr its 125th season of providing free summer vacations to underprivileged children from New York City. This summer, nearly 6,000 boys and girls between the ages of six and 18 will participate in the Friendly Town program. They will visit the homes of volunteer host families living in rural and suburban communities throughout 13 northeastern states and Canada. Hundreds of New York City youngsters will be visiting volunteer host families in and around the Niagara Falls, Ontario area. Since 1877, The Fresh Air Fund has provided free country vacations to more than 1.6 million disadvantaged youngsters. Fresh Air Fund children leave hot city streets behind for two weeks of simple summertime fun - running through grassy fields, swimming in country lakes, catching fireflies at dusk, and sleeping under skies filled with stars. For many of these children, a free Fresh Air vacation is their first experience away from the inner-city. More than 65% of Fresh Air Fund youngsters return to visit host families year after year. There are many more New York City youngsters who can benefit from summer days spent in suburban and small town communities. We would greatly appreciate your help with reaching out to families who might enioy hosting Fresh Air Fund children this summer by proclaiming "Fresh Air Fund Day in Niagara Falls" on March 20, 2001. Your participation will be a great help to the host recruitment efforts of our volunteer leaders in your area. Enclosed please find a sample proclmnation and background materials for your review. Thank you for your time and consideration. enthau~ - ~ Deanna Rudyk Executive Director Port Colborne (905) 835-1656 1040 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS · NEW YORK, NY 10018 · (212)897-8900 · E-maih freshair@freshair.org · Web page: www.freshair.org Officers: Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Chairman Emeritus · Mrs. Donald Newhouse, Chairman of the Board · C. Stephen Heard, Jr., President · Ruth W. Houghton, Vice President · Winthrop Rutherfurd, Jr., Secretary · Derrick D. Cephas, Treasurer · D/rectors: Tom A. Bernstein · Mariah Carey ,, John G. Davis ,, Sharon Saul Davis · Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel * Wendy R. Flanagan · Simon P. Gourdine · Tommy Hilfiger · Mrs. Elston Gene Howard ,, John N. Irwin III ,, Howard B. Johnson · Judith A. Langan · Joseph J. Magliocco · Eugene R. McGrath · Katherine M. Morris · Kenneth F. Mountcastle, Jr. ,, Robert L. Pressman · Brandon Reid · Jacqueline Albert Simon · Cynthia Sulzberger · Sidney Suffer · Stuart B. Upson · Marc P. Weill · Janice Savin Williams · Life Directors: Mrs. H. Lawrence Bogert · Whitelaw Reid Executive Director: Jenny Morgenthau WHEREAS The Fresh Air Fund provides free summer vacations in the country to 10,000 New York City youngsters each summer, and WHEREAS The Fresh Air Fund allows city youngsters to visit the homes of volunteer host families in 13 states and Canada, and WHEREAS Niagara Falls, Ontario, families have been participating in The Fresh Air Fund Friendly Town program for over 100 years, and WHEREAS The Fresh Air Fund allows New York City youngsters to enjoy Niagara Falls, Ontario, beaches, backyards, parks, and wide open spaces, and WHEREAS The Fresh Air Fund is beginning its 125th season, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Wayne Thomson, Mayor of Niagara Falls, Ontario, do hereby proclaim March 20, 2001 to be: "FRESH AIR FUND DAY" in Niagara Falls, Ontario, in recognition of the valuable summertime experiences offered by The Fresh Air Fund. OFFICE OF THE: MAYOR CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CLERK DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR OF BUILDING & ENFORCEMENT SERVICES 'THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PELHAM TEL, (905) 892-2607 FAX (905) 892-5055 POST OFFICE BOX 400 PELHAM MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 20 PELHAM TOWN SQUARE FONTHILL, ONTARIO LOS 1E0 January 26, 2001 MR. E. C. WAGG, CITY CLERK CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS 4310 QUEEN STREET NIAGARA FALLS ON L2E 6X5 Dear Mr. Wagg: On October 4th., 2000, Council of the Town of Pelham forwarded a resolution to all area municipalities within the Region of Niagara requesting their support for the Mobility Niagara initiative. To date many municipalities have indicated their support for this very worthwhile program, which is provided to persons with cognitive, psychological, visual or physical disabilities, as well as persons 65 years of age or older, but much work and financial support is required to have this invaluable service reinstated. Since that time, many meetings have taken place with the key stakeholders, with the most recent meeting being held January 15th., 2001 at which time the attached figures were distributed. At the meeting held on January 15th., 2001, it was agreed that a Business Plan would be prepared and submitted to the Regional Municipality of Niagara for consideration. At this time we are requesting the area municipalities within the Region of Niagara to keep in mind their support for this program and to consider a financial contribution which would allow for the reinstatement of this program, during their 2001 budget deliberations. The key stakeholders are hopeful that an expedient, successful and sustainable program can be put back into service to assist the residents of the Niagara Region. -2- Mobility Niagara has indicated that they will be looking to all levels of government (municipal, regional and provincial) as well as community partners and users in order to make this a viable, successful program which is much needed in the Regional Municipality of Niagara as noted by the figures attached. Your consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated. Yours very truly, TOWN OF PELHAM Cheryl Miclette, AMCT Town Clerk cm Enclosure ~2/~5/01 09:56:57 ~ST~ ~$SOCI~TIO~ OF?-> FEB-05-O1 NON 09:39 AH 905 356 9083 CLERR-Biaga~a Fall~ Pa~e 003 NO, 416 971 6191 P, 02 REGISTRATION FORM 2001 AMO Annual Conference AuguM 19 - 22, 20(11 - Royal York Haiti f)I-LI:GA]E~ First Name: Tide: Address: Municipality/OrB, City; COMPANION: Fir~l Name: Fax: L. ) [mail: Last Name: Po~tal Code: GST Registration ~ R10G7329.14 A/HO MEMBERS FEDERAL/PROVINCIAL Governmcnls 6all feo~ include 7% GET) (GST ExempO Bird i ~:~m,~r~',,,q r4,,i I~,?, J Enclosed Bird ] ~.,~,~.,.,I J ~A.~. ;~.~, I Enclosed 39,1.30 S 441.38 $ 523.77 Total F~u(S) Total Fee(s) Enclosed $ -- Enclosed $ -- NON-MEMBER.~ (~ll fees h~clude 7% Early -["Regular Bird J 0.,o,,..,k,,,l [ ¢.t,~. Total Fee(~) Enclosed Reglslrath)n ~rms CANNOT be processed unless accompanied will) proper payment. ONLY PA YMEN7~ BY CIIEI)I[ CARD ~Y ~E FAXED TO 416.g71.~372 I'~. Cl~ecluo payable lo: ASSOCIATION OF MUNICI?ALrlIEg OF ONTARIO 39t University Ave., Sutla 1701 Tc. omu, OYd~rio MSG 1[(, CREDITCA;H.;: {~ - VISA C~ . MaslerCard CJ - Arneriran Expr~-~ P RI Ni' NAMI': CARl') [;XPIRY DATE: SIGNATURE: fie be completed ONLY by municipally elected officials~ dg~larations made on Ihis form are final and CANNOT be changed ballo~ i~sued will be. in accordance with declaration on this form My municipality is an ,",MO Member: C] - YES O - NO I m'n an ek.'cled official in my municipality: El - YES U - NO For votin~ plJrpo$c~, ElecleE OflTc;Ms need to declare choice of CgLlgll~ (pic~ one only), ~ - Coun~ C~ucus Q - Large U~an Caucus ~. Northarn Caucu~ Q - Regionol Caucus ~ - Rul'~l Caucus ~ - small Urban C~ur:us ~ - Toroll[o Caucu~ RtFUND POLICY[ Cancellntion~ alu:ct hu ruqueslt~Cl in Wrllir~g nmi ruCeived by AMOn,* ~r bu~ure Augusl 3'u, 2001. An administration ~e~; nf $53.50 ($50 + GS I~ w[tl ~ppty to ~11 r~&md',. REQUEST fOR REFUNDS ~ILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ~I'ER AUCUST 3,a 2001. fLEGIST~I ION INQUIRIES; ~wun Rideotn, 1 .U77-426-fi~27 Ext. 330 · [nlnih c~rtference~anlo,m,nh.om.com 82/85/81 09:56:Zl EST; flSSOCIflTIOH FEB-05-O1 NON 09:39 AN .... ~ ........... ,.~,~,.,._,~.~,~.~F~X NO, 416 971 6191 P. 01 20rj/ AMO Conferer~ce Dear Municipnl Colleag~e: The 2001 AMO Annual Conference promises to bo as successful as in thc past. This year's conference will he held £rom August 19-22,2001 at lhe Fairmount Royal York I Intel in Toronto and by registering bet'ore thc Early Bird deadline, AMO members can save more than 30% offthe on-site tee. Municipal issues facing local government officials are more compJcx than ever and thc challenges are equally demanding This con£crcnee, with over a dozcl~ practical workshops and thought-provoking spcnkcrs, will equip del:gales with ideas and practices to help meet these challenges. Our program will g~la rantee timely topics on such matters as: ,/ ,/ i~'aslr,u'lure financi~g property assessment a new Municipal.,lct, and progress o~ the "t~e}¢ deal" ax ammunced by Minixter 2boy Clement at the 2000/MO confcrcmcc~ Again wc are anticipating a high turnout of senior Cabinet and provincial govermnent officials to answer your questions and hear your concerns. Enclosed you will find an AMO conference registration form, Please complete the registration form and return to AMO with payment tn take full advaatage of the 30% savings. l-Lcscrvatio[~s tbr acconmmdation at thc Fairmount P. oyal York can be made as follows: National R. escrvatlon,~: Direct to ho~el: Direct fax: Toll ~ee 1-800-866-5577 416-368-2511 416-368-9040 Group Rate Code: CAMOI Make sm'e you register today[ Yours very sincerely, Arm Mulvale, AMO President I The City of Niagara Falls Canada Community Services Department Municipal Works 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-mail: bdarrall@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director MW-2001-18 February 19, 2001 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls Members: Re: MW-2001-18 Agreement with the Province to Construct A Storm Trunk Sewer Across Highway 420 RECOMMENDATION: That the City of Niagara Falls proceed with the construction of the first phase of a new Trunk Stoim Sewer from the existing drop shaft on Valley Way southerly along Stanley Avenue; and Staff prepare an agreement with the Province for Council's approval to construct the Storm Sewer across Highway 420. BACKGROUND: The area south of Highway 420 on Stanley Avenue is serviced by a combined sewer which outlets into the Muddy Run. As Committee is aware, over the years, there has been a history of basement flooding in this area. In recent years, with the development in the Fallsview Tourist Core Area, there has been a steady increase in the severity and frequency of flooding incidents. In addition, the flooding problem has spread to areas which have not had the problem in the past. There are three possible solutions to alleviate flooding problems, either reduce the amount of flow entering the sewer, increase the capacity of the existing sewer or separate the sewers. By separating the sewers, the City in fact increases the capacity of the existing combined sewer because the storm drainage component of the flow is removed. Not only is it not possible to reduce the flows in the existing sewer, the proposed development in the Fallsview Tourist Core Area will cause them to increase. It is not economically feasible or technically sound to increase the size of the combined sewer. Therefore, the only real option is to separate the sewer which will eliminate the flooding concerns in the separated area and free up wet weather capacity downstream. SEWER SEPARATION: The City has considered two options for separating sewers in this area. The first proposes that a [Vorking Together to Serve Our Community Municipal Works · Fire Sen/ices . Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development new drop shaft be constructed when the Sir Adam Beck III hydro tunnel is constructed. The second option is to construct a new storm trunk sewer into the existing drop shaft at Valley Way. Both options have their pros and cons which are discussed below: Sir Adam Beck III Drop Shafts ( Estimated Total Cost: $6,900,000 ) Pros: the location of the drop shaft is more centralized to the area it is servicing there is no need for a highway crossing the required storm sewers would be a smaller diameter the estimated cost is less Coils; it is uncertain that Hydro will proceed with the Tunnel there is a minimum of five years lead and construction time before the drop shafts are operational once the tunnel go ahead has been given (i.e. minimum start date 2006) flooding in the problem areas will not be mitigated until all the work is complete development in the drainage area may have to be stopped until the drop shafts are completed and sewers are constructed the City may be liable for any flooding which may occur during the waiting period Valley Way Storm Trunk Sewer ( Estimated Total Cost: $7,150,000 ) Pros: the City can proceed on its own without being tied to whether or not Hydro proceeds construction can start immediately there will be an immediate relief to basement flooding in the area because there will be immediate relief, development can still proceed in the drainage area the City will be taking steps to address a known problem thereby mitigating any liability from potential flooding Cons: this alternative is more expensive large diameter tnmk sewers must be constructed the sewer is required to cross the highway 2001-2-19 -3- MW-2001-18 Upon reviewing the pros and cons of each alternative, staff is recommending that the trunk storm sewer into the existing drop shaft at Valley Way proceed. The key factors in making this recommendation are obviously the uncertainty as to if and when hydro will proceed with the tunnel. Further, once that decision is made there is a minimum of five years required to do the ttmnel and construct the drop shafts, during which time there will be no relief to the flooding problems. By proceeding with the recommended alternative, we can proceed immediately with construction and relief to potential flooding areas. This will help us mitigate any potential liability. Although this is a slightly more expensive solution, staff believes that the immediate benefits far outweigh the cost difference. The first phase will start at the drop shaft on Valley Way, cross Highway 420 and end just south of Kitchener Street on Stanley Avenue. This phase is estimated to cost $3,100,000 and is included in the proposed 2001 Capital Budget. The Committee's concurrence with the above recommendations would be appreciated. A dt full.~Y.~Submitted'-by: · ' istrative Officer/ Manager of Engineering Services deEd Du~lov~ Director of Municipal Works proved by: on / / ExecutiveDirector of Community Services S:~.EPORTS~2001 Reports~VlW-2001-I 8 Hwy 420 Storm Tmnk.wpd The City of Niagara Falls I Canada Community Services Department Municipal Works 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-mail: fi3iggins@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Febmaryl9,2001 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re-' MW-2001-19 - Contract 2001-16 T. V. Inspection of Sewers Ed Dujlovic, P. Eng. Director MW-2001-19 File 2001-16 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the unit prices submitted by the low tenderer, Trans-Video Inspection Ltd., be accepted and the by-law be passed. BACKGROUND: The Tender Opening Committee, in the presence of the City Clerk, Mr. E. C. Wagg, opened tenders on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. for the above noted contract. Tender documents were picked up by seven (7) contractors and two (2) bids were received. Listed below is a summary of the totalled tendered prices, excluding GST, received from the two contractors: 1) Trans-Video Ltd. 2) Bob Robinson Construction (Burlington) (Port Robinson) $18,310.00 $21,380.00 The lowest tender was received from Trans-Video Ltd. in the amount of $18,310.00. This Contractor has previously performed similar type work for the City. We are therefore, of the opinion, that this Contractor is capable of successfully undertaking this project. Municipal Works Working Together to Serve Our Community Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture · Business Development · Building & By-Laws 2001-02-19 -2 - Financing: The Engineer's estimate for this contract was $30,000.00. Project Cost: Awarded Contract $18,310.00 Net GST 3% $ 549.30 Total $18,859.30 Funding: 2001 Current Budget - sanitary - storm Total $27,000.00 $ 3,0OO.0O $30,000.00 MW-2001-19 This contract will mn for a three year period, with an annual increase tied to the Composite Construction cost index for Ontario, as prepared by Canadata. Actual work will be performed up to the budgeted amount for each year. Council's concurrence with the recommendation made would be appreciated. Frank Higgins, C.E.T. Manager of Projects Ed Dujlovic, P.Eng. Director of Municipal Works /k~roved by: acD Executive Director of Community Services R.~p~:tfully submitted ~ ~dP. Lustig C ~ Chief Administrative Officer S:kREPORTS~2001 ReportsWlW~2001.19, T. V Inspection of Sewers wpd The City of Niagara Falls Canada Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee 4310 Queen Street P.O. Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on.ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-2354 E-mail: nfplan@city.niagarafalls.on.ca February l9,2001 His Worship Mayor W. Thomson and Members of the Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: PD-2001-20, Matters Arising from the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) 2) 3) Kathy Powell Chair PD-2001-20 Heritage Week: It is recommended that Council proclaim the week of February 18 to February 25, 2001 as Heritage Week in the City of Niagara Falls. Designation: It is recommended that staffbe authorized to initiate proceedings to designate the following under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act: a) The Stamford Oak Tree, Portage Road; and b) The Copper Beech T~ee, Drummond Hill Cemetery. Dedication Ceremony: It is recommended that the dedication of the Heritage Plaque at Buchner House, 6172 Buchner Place, be held May 5, 2001 (May 26, 2001 raindate). CONCLUSION: LACAC is seeking the concurrence of City Council on these matters. Respectfully Submitted: Kathy Powell, Chair i~'~"/.~ ~,_,I~ Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee :tc S 5PDR~200 I~PD2001-20.wpd Wor[O~ To~ttler to Serve Our Commanit~ PROCLAMATION Whereas the protection, preservation and promotion of our built, natural and cultural heritage is recognized as contributing to the enrichment of the community, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls hereby proclaims FEBRUARY 18 - 25, 2001 as HERITAGE WEEK All citizens are encouraged to celebrate the history and heritage of our community through cultural exchange, programs, projects and visits to historic sites, exhibits and commemorative events. You are hereby invited to participate in events that will assist in the enrichment and development of our understanding of our origins and history of our community and create a common identity. This year's theme is "THE POWER OF OUR HERITAGE". Various exhibits and events are planned to allow everyone to experience the rich and vibrant history connected with the heritage of the City of Niagara Falls. Wayne Thomson Mayor Join us in celebration of our heritage. HERITAGE TOUR Sir Adam Beck Generating Station ' Thursday, February 22, 2001 at 3:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Cost is $2 per person. Pre-register by calling 356-7521, extension 4330 SPECIAL EXHIBITS Displays will be set-up at: Lundy's Lane Museum, Niagara Falls Public Library - Victoria Avenue, and Peterson's Workshop (Chippawa). The Cily of Niagara Falls Community Services Department Parks, Recreation & Culture 7565 Lundy's Lane Niagara Falls, ON L2H 1G9 web site: www.city.niagarafalls.on,ca Tel: (905) 356-7521 Fax: (905) 356-7404 E-maih akon@city.niagarafalls.on.ca Adele Kon Director R-200'1.06 February l9,2001 His Worship Mayor Wayne Thomson and Members of Municipal Council City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: R-2001-06 - The Supply and Installation Of Fitness Play Equipment and Landscape Materials For Chippawa Lions Park RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: Quotation # 3-2001 for the Supply and Installation of Fitness Play Equipment and Landscape Materials For Chippawa Lions Park be awarded to Landscape Florida of Niagara-On-The- Lake, Ontario at the bid price of $19,474.00 (including taxes). BACKGROUND: As part of the Chippawa Lions Park Fitness Pathway Project, the Chippawa Lions Club had requested that City staff assist them in the development of a new fitness station. Further to this request, four (4) quotations were picked up by various bidders and three (3) bids were received by the Supply & Services Section of the Clerk's Department, as follows: Company: Total Bid Price (Taxes Included) Landscape Florida, Niagara-On-The-Lake Stevensville Lawn Service, Stevensville Peninsula Fence & Landscaping Inc., Fonthill $19,474.00 $ 20,517.25 $ 21,614.00 Funding: This project is being totally funded by the Chippawa Lions Club Pathway Committee through a Trillium grant and additional project funds. Working Together to Serve Our Community Municipal Works · Fire Services · Parks, Recreation & Culture Business Development R-2001-06 - 2 - Febmary 19, 2001 The new fitness area is scheduled to start construction before March 31st, 2001. Council's concurrence with the recommendations contained in this report would be appreciated. Recommended by: ~ Adele Kon Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture // John MacDonald ~/' Executive Director of Community Services AK/JC/das S:\Council\Counci12001 ~-2001-06 itfully S...,ubmitted: ~d~rAd P'dm~n~:titl gative fO~ficer CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2001 - A by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement with Trans-Video Inspection Limited respecting T.V. inspection of sewers from March 2001 to December 19, 2003. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. An agreement dated the 19th day of February, 2001 between Trans-Video Inspection Limited and The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls respecting T.V. inspection of sewers from March 2001 to December 19, 2003, with an upset limit of $30,000.00 per year, is hereby approved and authorized. 2. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the said agreement. 3. The Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal thereto and to deliver the said agreement. Passed this day of ,2001 E. C. WAGG, CITY CLERK WAYNE THOMSON, MAYOR First Reading: ,2001. Second Reading: ,2001. Third Reading: ,2001. SCHEDULE "A" T.V. INSPECTION OF SEWERS From March 2001 to December 19, 2003 CONTRACT #2001-16 THIS AGREEMENT made in quadruplicate the 19th day of February, A.D. 2001. BETWEEN: TRANS-VIDEO INSPECTION LIMITED Hereinafter called the "Contractor", of the FIRST PART; THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Hereinai~er called the "Corporation", of the SECOND PART. WHEREAS the Corporation has awarded to the Contractor the contract for all labour, materials and equipment required for the T.V. Inspection of sanitary, combined and storm sewers, in the City of Niagara Falls, in accordance with the drawings, specifications, general conditions of the contract and other documents and papers listed in paragraph 4 of this agreement (all of such drawings, specifications, general conditions of the cohtract and other documents and papers herein referred to as the "contract documents"), copies of which are hereto attached, the Contractor having put in a CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2001 - A by-law to authorize the execution of an agreement with Noelle Sinclair and Kerfie Sinclair respecting "Roosevelt Condominium". THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. An agreement dated the 13th day of February, 2001 between Noelle Sinclair and Kelxie Sinclair and The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, subject to such terms and conditions as set out in the agreement and an excerpt of the first page attached hereto as Schedule "A", is hereby approved and authorized, respecting Roosevelt Condominium being the lands described as Lot 60, Plan 261, and also described as Parts 1 and 2 on Reference Plan 59R-10834, located on the south side of Roosevelt Avenue, in the City of Niagara Falls, and providing for certain renovations by the company, as set out in the said agreement, is hereby approved and authorized. 2. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the said agreement, grants to the City of any easements required to it and such other agreements and documents which the City Solicitor deems necessary or desirable to carry out the intent of this by-law and the said agreement and the Clerk is hereby authorized to affix the corporate seal thereto and to deliver the said agreement, grants of easements and other agreements and documents. Passed this day of ,2001. E. C. WAGG, CITY CLERK WAYNE THOMSON, MAYOR First Reading: ,2001. Second Reading: ,2001. Third Reading: ,2001. SCHEDULE "A" THIS AGREEMENT made this 13th day of February, 2001. BETWEEN: NOELLE SINCLAIR and KERRIE SINCLAIR Hereinafter called the "Owners", THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Hereinafter called the "City", of the FIRST PART of the SECOND PART WHEREAS the Owners received draft plan approval on December 14, 2000 from the City of Niagara Falls under Section 51 of the Planning Act and Section 50 of the Condominium ~4ct with respect to the lands described in Schedule "A"; AND WHEREAS in accordance with the conditions imposed by the City, the Owners are required to enter into tlfis Agreement. NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the City recommending the final approval of the said plan and the mutual covenants and other good and valuable consideration, the Owners and the City hereby covenant and agree with each other as follows: