HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 9, 2002Committee of the Whole Meeting
Agenda
Monday, December 9, 2002 at 7:30 p.m.
Chair: Councillor Johnson
(!)
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Meeting of November 11, 2002
(11}
1.
DELEGATIONS
Donna Dickson, representing the Pearl Earth Corporation, will
Committee with respect to a plasma conversion plant in Pickering.
address the
(111)
1.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 52-02
RECREATION, PARKS AND CULTURAL SERVICES
MASTER PLAN FINAL REPORT
PAGE
1-5
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT CAO 08-02
KINGSTON ROAD DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES STUDY
CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS
6-14
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT CAO 09-02
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES
PICKERING (NUCLEAR)WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITY EXPANSION
15-48
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT 10-02
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR
PICKERING'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY
49-86
o
CLERKS REPORT CL 40-02
PROPOSED REGIONAL SMOKING BY-LAW
87-184
Committee of the Whole Meeting
Agenda
Monday, December 9, 2002 at 7:30 p.m.
Chair: Councillor Johnson
CLERKS REPORT CL 37-02
APPOINTMENT OF BY-LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
185-192
(IV) OTHER BUSINESS
(V) ADJOURNMENT
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report OES 52-02 be received by Council; and
That the Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services Master Plan Final Report
(November 2002) be adopted; and
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect
thereto.
REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Report Number: OES 52-02
Date: November 25, 2002
From:
Stephen Reynolds
Division Head, Culture & Recreation
Subject:
Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services
- Master Plan Final Report
- File: CO3000
Recommendation:
1.
2.
That Report OES 52-02 be received by Council and; that
The Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services Master Plan Final Report
(November 2002) be adopted;
The appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect
thereto.
Executive Summary:
The City of Pickering has developed a strategic master plan for recreation, parks and
cultural services to address future leisure needs in the community in view of increasing
population, demographic changes, and shifts in leisure interests and service delivery
options.
The Master Plan will reflect Pickering's vision for community leisure services over the
next five to ten years. The Master Plan is strategic in nature providing essential and
focused direction to secure this desired vision.
Financial Implications:
Financial implications will be further investigated by the Operations & Emergency
Services Department in consultation with the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer.
The implementation timing for each project involved will depend on when sufficient
capital funds will be available to undertake any given project.
Financing recommended projects will be brought back to Council for consideration and
final approval.
Report OES 52-02
Subject: Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services
- Master Plan
Date:
November 25, 2002
Page 2
Background:
The Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services Master Plan has been prepared for the
Council of the City of Pickering by the Operations & Emergency Services Department.
We gratefully acknowledge the support and participation of the residents and
community groups without whose assistance this report would not have been possible.
The purpose of the Master Plan was to evaluate, forecast and plan for changes in the
supply and demand of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services over the next five years
and beyond.
The Master Plan is provided in two documents. The first, a consolidated background
resource document, the Technical Report documents the current state of service
provision, community resources, public needs and aspirations and relevant socio-
demographic and leisure trends. The Technical Report analyzes the status quo. It
paints a picture of what the City of Pickering might do if the future was to be the same
as the present.., if services were to be provided in the same manner, and at the same
level as they are today. However, with a growing community and continued demands
from residents for additional community services, it is clear that the future cannot be the
same as the past.
The second document, the Strategic Plan Report, builds on the present and anticipated
resource base as well as community expectations to create future directions for leisure
service provision. The Strategic Plan Report is a stand-alone document that makes
recommendations on the development of Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services for
the next 5 to 10 years. It is designed to be a concise and user-friendly document
condusive to routine use by staff, elected officials and members of the community.
The Strategic Plan Report is divided into five chapters:
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Introduction
Strategic Plan - Facility
Strategic Plan - Programs
Strategic Plan - Parks and Open Space
Financial Implications
Chapters Two through Four describe (1) the issues for each service area that were
identified through the study process; (2) the strategic directions required to respond to
these issues; (3) the current state of service areas, as described and analyzed in the
Technical Report and (4) recommendations for each service area; consistent with the
community needs and strategic directions.
Chapter Five outlines each of the Strategic Plan recommendations, timing and costs
where applicable.
Report OES 52-02
Subject: Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services
- Master Plan
Date:
November 25, 2002
Page 3
Since the presentation of the Master Plan Draft Final Report at the Operations &
Finance Committee meeting on Monday, May 27, 2002, as per Council's direction, staff
have continued the master plan process by providing opportunities for the community to
comment prior to finalizing the Master Plan Report. This included:
June 25/02
Conducted a Public & Community Group Briefing - community leaders representing
various user groups were provided the Master Plan - Draft Final Report for review and
comment.
July, August & September~02
Community leaders representing various user groups & public provided comments re:
Master Plan - Draft Final Report.
Additional Youth Focus Group sessions held to augment existing information in report.
September 30/02
Staff reported on community comments
summarize for Council review.
to Master Plan
- Draft Final Report &
The Master Plan Draft Final Report has been updated and incorporated into this
Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services Master Plan Final Report. The Master Plan will
be monitored and reviewed annually to ensure that the issues addressed in the Plan
and the strategies and recommendations remain relevant.
The Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services Master Plan reflects Pickering's vision for
community leisure services in the new Millennium. The Master Plan process has clearly
provided an opportunity to assess current services, measure community satisfaction
and develop a strategic plan that will meet the leisure needs of our community for future
years. The Master Plan will allow the City of Pickering to be proactive and prepare for
the current and future needs of this community.
Attachments:
Recreation, Parks & Cultural Services Master Plan - Technical Report
(Final Report - November 2002)
Recreation, Parks & Cultural Services Master Plan - Strategic Plan Report
(Final Report - November 2002)
Report OES 52-02
Subject: Recreation, Parks and Cultural Services
- Master Plan
Date:
November 25, 2002
Page 4
Prep~
....... ' SDtive?s~o~~u It ~ re & Recreation
Approved ~ Endorse~?
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
SR:Ig
Attachments ·
Copy:
Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council ,, I')
/,,;'- ...,,' /.
............. -. ~ ~ ~'~
'r-h/°~as J. OuirlH', Chief/~m~n~'t~ve Off, O"er
I-'ICK, EI NC
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Council receive for information Report CAO-08-02 concerning the Kingston
Road Design Opportunities Study, prepared by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates
(TSH) for the Region of Durham; and
That Council endorse the following recommendations:
i) That a signalized intersection and formalized pedestrian crossing be
established on Kingston Road mid-block between Liverpool Road and
Glenanna Road; and
ii) That the Region of Durham continue to offer excess road allowance along
Kingston Road to abutting private landowners to encourage development
opportunities and enhanced landscaped areas on properties fronting Kingston
Road; and
iii) That the Region of Durham commence the detailed design work of Kingston
Road between Pine Creek and the Ontario Hydro Corridor (east of Valley
Farm Road) in 2003, and commence the implementation of works in 2004;
and
That Council authorize the CAO to prepare in 2003 a "5-Year Downtown
Implementation Strategy" for Council's consideration.
That a copy of this Report and Council's recommendations be circulated to the
Region of Durham.
PICKER[NG
REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Report Number: CAO-08-02
Date: November 13, 2002
From:
Thomas J. Quinn
Chief Administrative Officer
Subject:
Kingston Road Design Opportunities Study
City of Pickering Comments
File: PL 5020
Recommendations:
That Council receive for information Report CAO-08-02 concerning the
Kingston Road Design Opportunities Study, prepared by Totten Sims
Hubicki Associates (TSH) for the Region of Durham.
2. That Council endorse the following recommendations:
i) That a signalized intersection and formalized pedestrian crossing be
established on Kingston Road mid-block between Liverpool Road and
Glenanna Road;
ii) That the Region of Durham continue to offer excess road allowance
along Kingston Road to abutting private landowners to encourage
development opportunities and enhanced landscaped areas on
properties fronting Kingston Road; and
iii) That the Region of Durham commence the detailed design work of
Kingston Road between Pine Creek and the Ontario Hydro Corridor
(east of Valley Farm Road) in 2003, and commence the
implementation of works in 2004.
That Council authorize the CAO to prepare in 2003 a "5-Year Downtown
Implementation Strategy" for Council's consideration.
That a copy of this Report and Council's recommendations be circulated
to the Region of Durham.
Executive Summary:
The Region of Durham commissioned Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (TSH) to
complete a Report respecting opportunities for advancing changes in the design
and operation of Kingston Road through the City's downtown core. The resultant
Report, entitled "Kingston Road Design Opportunities - Pine Creek to Hydro
Corridor, City of Pickering", was released earlier this year, and copies were
distributed to members of Council.
Report CAO- 08-02
Subject: Kingston Road Design Opportunities Study
Date: November 13, 2002
Page 2
The Region anticipates beginning detailed design work on this section of
Kingston Road in 2004 with implementation to begin in 2005. Given the
importance of the downtown core to the City, it is recommended that Council
request the Region to advance its design work and implementation schedule. In
addition, Council has the opportunity to provide comments to the Region on
certain key elements of the TSH Report before detailed design work is done.
Accordingly, this Report recommends that the Region of Durham:
· establish a signalized and pedestrian-friendly intersection on Kingston
Road mid-block between Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road;
· continue to offer private landowners abutting Kingston Road any excess
road allowance for private development as opposed to the Region
maintaining oversized landscaped boulevards; and
· begin the detailed design work and resultant improvements to the
"Downtown" section of Kingston Road as soon as possible (design work in
2003 and implementation of works commencing in 2004).
There are many other opportunities for improvements and enhancements to the
City's downtown core beyond those associated with the Kingston Road frontage.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Council authorize staff to build on the
Kingston Road Study by investigating and reporting back to Council on a 5-Year
implementation strategy for all lands generally within the downtown core.
Financial Implications:
Not applicable to the City's recommendations to the Region of Durham
respecting Kingston Road design opportunities. A 5-Year Downtown
Implementation Strategy completed by staff in 2003 would outline anticipated
costs for implementing recommended improvements and enhancements to the
downtown, and would highlight anticipated external funding sources and
partnerships.
Background:
The Region of Durham commissioned Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (TSH) to
complete a Report respecting opportunities for advancing changes in the design
and operation of Kingston Road, particularly within the City's downtown core.
The resultant Report, entitled "Kingston Road Design Opportunities- Pine Creek
to Hydro Corridor, City of Pickering" was issued to the City by the Region of
Durham.
A key objective espoused in the TSH Report is the eventual transformation of
Kingston Road from a high-speed arterial commuter road to a more urban and
Report CAO- 08-02
Subject: Kingston Road Design Opportunities Study
Date: November 13, 2002
Page 3
pedestrian-friendly lower-speed arterial mainstreet. A copy of the TSH Report is
available for viewing through the CAO's Office.
The Report outlines a number of sources of data that were considered by TSH,
including existing traffic conditions, collision and speed data, and traffic volume
trends. The Report also recommends future traffic control and road design
approaches, landscape concepts and cost estimation for phased road works and
landscaping at identified road sections within the Study Area.
More specifically, the Report concludes that:
1. Kingston Road continues to function as an important east-west arterial
road in the City and Region, even while traffic volumes have decreased
resulting from the widening of Highway 401.
2. There will be an increasing amount of locally generated traffic and a
decreasing amount of through traffic on Kingston Road within the study
area, providing a good opportunity to commence the transformation of
Kingston Road from a "commuter highway" route to a lower-speed urban
arterial "main street".
3. The road design, landscaping and traffic controls suggested in the
preliminary concept plans completed by TSH (and provided as
attachments to the TSH Report) will maintain good traffic operations and
provide preliminary designs for discussion purposes with the Region, City
and local stakeholders.
4. A traffic signal at the Kingston Road/Pickering Town Centre intersection is
not feasible, nor practical from an operational, safety and design
perspective for the foreseeable future.
5. The implementation of the road design aspects of the concept plan
prepared by TSH would result in lower traffic speeds, improved and safer
pedestrian areas and crossings, and significant opportunities for enhanced
landscape/streetscape features.
6. The cost to implement the roadwork and landscaping components of the
proposed concept plan (along Kingston Road from Pine Creek to Valley
Farm Road) are estimated at approximately $2 million dollars.
Discussion:
TSH Final Report- Kinqston Road Desiqn Opportunities
Signalization of Kingston Road/Pickering Town Centre Entrance Intersection
TSH concluded in their Report that installing a traffic signal at the Kingston
Road/Pickering Town Centre (PTC) entrance intersection is not feasible, nor
practical from an operational, safety and design perspective in the foreseeable
future. They conclude that traffic safety and operations could be compromised,
and provide alternative design concepts for consideration.
Ol 0
Report CAO- 08-02
Subject: Kingston Road Design Opportunities Study
Date:
November13,2002
Page 4
The Report, however, does note that reduced intersection spacing is considered
in exceptional cases where traffic control signals are warranted and/or where
there are no alternative solutions available.
It is recommended that a signalized intersection with a pedestrian-friendly
crossing along Kingston Road mid-block between Liverpool Road and
Glenanna Road be established, for the following reasons:
· to improve pedestrian safety by creating a "friendlier" and more direct
crossing for people traveling between properties on the north and south
side of Kingston Road, while slowing down traffic within this road section;
· to create a more desirable urban "Downtown" block pattern, as envisioned
in the Council-adopted "Kingston Road Corridor Urban Design
Development Guidelines"; and
· to control left turns out of the PTC parking lot onto Kingston Road while
providing a desirable access route to and from the PTC that will reduce
traffic pressure on other entrance/exit points on that properly.
Support for the establishment of a new mid-block signalized intersection has also
been expressed by the City's Director, Planning & Development, the Liverpool
West Community Association and Joanne Palma (mother of Cora Palma who
was struck and killed by a vehicle while crossing Kingston Road).
It is recommended that any detailed design work carried out by the Region for
Kingston Road should allow for the establishment of a signalized intersection at
the Kingston Road/PTC entrance intersection.
Excess Road Allowance
The TSH Report recommends extensive landscaping/streetscaping treatments
and features along the downtown section of Kingston Road. This
recommendation is supported. In addition, we acknowledge and support the
Region's commitment to consider the disposal of excess road allowance resulting
from the transformation of Kingston Road to a lower speed arterial road.
Excess land can be used for enhanced landscaping features as well as to further
economic development opportunities. The placement of new buildings adjacent
to Kingston Road is the preferred method of establishing a pedestrian-friendly
urban mainstreet character within our downtown core.
It is our understanding that Regional Staff have considered requests from
specific landowners in Pickering to obtain excess road allowance. It is therefore
recommended that the Region continue to offer excess road allowance
along Kingston Road, wherever possible and practical, to abutting private
landowners to encourage new development opportunities and enhanced
Report CAO- 08-02
Subject: Kingston Road Design Opportunities Study
Date: November 13, 2002
Page 5
landscaped areas on properties fronting Kingston Road in the City's
Downtown.
Detailed Design and Implementation of Improvements
The TSH Report does not specify timelines for detailed design work and
implementation of improvements to Kingston Road, but does suggest that the
implementation of works should be phased. It is understood however, through
discussions with Regional Works staff that they intend to initiate detailed design
in 2004 and begin the implementation of works in 2005. Given the importance of
the City's downtown core, the Region should advance this timeline.
It is therefore recommended that the Region commence the detailed design
work of Kingston Road between Pine Creek and the Ontario Hydro Corridor
(east of Valley Farm Road) in 2003, and commence the implementation of
works in 2004.
Although the TSH Report did not deal with timelines, it did recommend the
phasing of improvements as follows:
Phase I - Kingston Road section from Liverpool Road to Glenanna Road;
Phase 2 - Kingston Road section from Pine Creek to Liverpool Road; and
Phase 3 - Kingston Road section from Glenanna Road to Valley Farm Road.
An additional implementation phase that must be included is works within the
Kingston Road section between Valley Farm Road and the Ontario Hydro
Corridor. This additional phase of works could be appropriately considered
Phase 4, and should commence following or concurrent with Phase 3
improvements.
Also, although priority sections have been highlighted, implementation of
improvements along certain property frontages may need to be considered in
advance of a phase to accompany anticipated site-specific development.
Properties that may be subject to site-specific work include:
1. Property recently acquired by Loblaws as part of their existing lands west
of Liverpool Road on the south side of Kingston Road.
2. Both the Hub Plaza and PTC lands located on the north and south side of
Kingston Road, between Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road.
3. Land owned by Cougs Developments located on the southeast corner of
Kingston Road and Valley Farm Road.
4. The former "Knob Hill Farms" property that is currently on the market.
It is also important that all detailed design work for the downtown section of
Kingston Road be planned in consultation with the City, private landowners and
other stakeholders.
2Rep°rt CAO- 08-02
Subject: Kingston Road Design Opportunities Study
Date: November 13, 2002
Page 6
2003 Work Project - Downtown Implementation Strategy
There are many opportunities for improvements and enhancements to the City's
downtown core beyond those associated with the Kingston Road frontage.
Additionally, there are several anticipated and planned initiatives and activities
(private and public) occurring within the downtown requiring coordination and
prioritization.
It is therefore recommended that Council authorize staff to complete a
5-Year Downtown Implementation Strategy in 2003 for Council's
consideration.
The Strategy would generally include all lands located in the City's downtown
core, as identified on Attachment #1 to this Report, and should identify initiatives
that improve and enhance the downtown core. Staff will work with affected
landowners and other stakeholders in preparing the Strategy. The key reasons
for undertaking the Strategy include:
1. To clearly identify current, anticipated and desirable development
initiatives and opportunities (both from the public and private sectors)
within a 5-Year time period.
2. To prioritize the timing of improvements and enhancements to ensure
optimal coordination and efficiency of development, while minimizing
associated implementation disruptions.
3. To identify, where possible, all known funding sources for initiatives
(private and public) and preferred timing of initiatives.
4. To identify vacant and "underdeveloped" land located in the downtown,
and develop strategies to encourage desirable development on those
properties.
Regular status updates will be provided by staff during 2003 should Council
authorize the preparation of this Strategy.
References:
1. "Kingston Road Design Opportunities - Pine Creek to Hydro Corridor, City
of Pickering", prepared by TSH for the Region of Durham, and dated
December, 2001.
2. "Kingston Road Corridor Urban Design Development Guidelines", adopted
by Council December, 1997.
3. "Pickering Downtown Core Development Guidelines", adopted by Council
June, 1997.
Report CAe- 08-02
Subject: Kingston Road Design Opportunities Study
Date:
November 13, 2002
Page 7
Attachment:
1. Map- City's Downtown Core
Prepared By:
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Chief Administrative Officer
T.ho.m. as E. elYr~
D,vis,on Hea~/Ide, Cor;orate~& Policy
RST:TM:kr
Attachment
Copy: All Directors
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
,T,~0.J~a~'~. Quinr~Chief A~.j~in' ~"" '
ATTACHMENT if ! TO REPORTlt~(~' ~'~' ~.
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
~ LANDS SUBJECT TO PROPOSED ~
DOWNTOWN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
DATE NOV. 7, 2002
PICKFKING
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report CAO 09-02 regarding the Pickering (Nuclear) Waste Management
Facility Expansion be received; and
That Council endorse Report CAO 09-02, including the comments provided by
Acres & Associated, as the City of Pickering's comments on the draft EA
guidelines for the Pickering (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Expansion;
and
That Report CAO 09-02 be forwarded to the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission for consideration in finalizing the EA guidelines for the Pickering
(Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Expansion, and to the Ontario Power
Generation for information.
PICKERING
REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Report Number: CAO 09-02
Date: November 25, 2002
Thomas J. Quinn
Chief Administrative Officer
Subject:
Draft Environmental Assessment Guidelines
Pickering (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Expansion
File: UT 3521
Recommendations:
1. That Report CAO 09-02 regarding the Pickering (Nuclear) Waste Management
Facility Expansion be received;
2. That Council endorse Report CAO-09-02, including the comments provided by
Acres & Associated, as the City of Pickering's comments on the draft EA
guidelines for the Pickering (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Expansion;
and
3. That Report CAO 09-02 be forwarded to the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission for consideration in finalizing the EA guidelines for the Pickering
(Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Expansion, and to the Ontario Power
Generation for information.
Executive Summary:
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) submitted notice to the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission (CNSC) of its intention to expand its existing on-site nuclear waste
management facility. The expansion will substantially increase the used dry fuel
storage capacity at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS) from
approximately 650 containers to over 1500 containers by 2016. The expansion is
needed to accommodate used fuel from the nuclear station to the end of its planned 40-
year service life.
The used fuel storage expansion is subject to a federal environmental assessment, as
well as an amendment to the existing CNSC operating licence. In late October, CNSC
released draft EA guidelines for a 30-day public review period. Staff asked CNSC for
additional time to review the guidelines and bring the matter before Council for
consideration, and was granted an extension to December 18th, 2002.
Report CAO 09-02
Draft EA Guidelines
Date:
Waste Management Facility Expansion
November 25, 2002
Page 2
The consulting firm of Acres & Associated (Acres) was commissioned to provide
technical advice and assistance to staff in reviewing the draft guidelines. Among their
various recommendations (see Attachment No. 2), Acres provides a number of
reasonable and appropriate modifications and enhancements to the guidelines. Of
note is the suggestion to use the term "temporary" when describing this project, to
ensure it is not misinterpreted as the long-term solution for nuclear waste storage. In
addition, because there are no guarantees that a permanent used fuel disposal facility
will be available at the end of the 40-year design life of the facility, Acres also requests
that the EA guidelines require more detailed consideration of the factors that affect the
long-term integrity of the containers.
Staff agree with the recommendations made by Acres. We also have an additional
comment to provide to CNSC. If approved, the proposed expansion to the existing
used fuel storage area at PNGS would more than double the amount of high-level
nuclear waste to be stored in Pickering. The EA guidelines must explicitly acknowledge
such cumulative effects, by ensuring that the environmental screening assesses the full
extent of impacts from the existing dry fuel storage at the plant, as well as the
expanded capacity.
It is recommended that Council endorse this Report as the City's comments on the draft
EA guidelines, and that a copy be forwarded to CNSC for consideration in finalizing the
guidelines.
Financial Implications:
OPG has agreed to cover the costs to the City for the review of the draft guidelines
provided by Acres (estimated to be approximately $5,000). OPG has also committed to
funding the City's peer review costs associated with the ensuing EA process, which is
expected to commence early in 2003.
Background:
When nuclear fuel comes out of a reactor at Pickering, it is initially stored in water filled
pools for a minimum of 10 years. After this period of time, the used fuel bundles can be
loaded into dry storage containers (DSCs) and transferred to a storage area elsewhere
on site. A single DSC has the capacity to hold up to 384 bundles of used fuel.
The existing dry fuel facility at PNGS (referred to as "Phase I") is located at the
southeast corner of the site. It has been in operation since 1996, and was constructed
as a temporary means of storing used nuclear fuel bundles until the federal government
finds a permanent solution to nuclear waste storage in Canada. The facility consists of
a warehouse building that has the capacity to hold approximately 650 dry storage
containers, and also includes a storage area that houses used nuclear reactor
components removed during the retubing of the PNGS A reactors.
Report CAO 09-02
Draft EA Guidelines
Date: November 25, 2002
Waste Management Facility Expansion Page 3
It is estimated that the Phase I storage facility will reach capacity by 2007. OPG has
therefore given notice to CNSC of its intent to expand this facility in order to
accommodate the storage of used nuclear fuel until the end of the planned 40-year
service life of the station. This "Phase I1" expansion would be located on PNGS
property, immediately east of the Phase I area (see location map on page 11 of the
draft guidelines). It would allow an increase in dry fuel storage capacity from
approximately 650 containers to an additional 500 containers by 2007 and a further 400
containers by 2016. In total, should the expansion be approved, there would be
approximately 1,500 containers on the Pickering site, holding an estimated 576,000 fuel
bundles.
To obtain permission to construct the new facility, OPG has applied to the CNSC for an
amendment to their current Waste Management Operating License. That application
requires an environmental screening to be conducted. The first stage of the process
requires CNSC to establish the EA guidelines. This Report addresses only this first
stage. Subsequent reports to the Mayor and Council will include status updates on the
progress of the environmental screening activities, a report on the final EA Screening
Report (including proposed comments from the City to CNSC), and a report on CNSC's
final decision on the licensing request.
The EA guidelines are administrative and project management directives that OPG and
CNSC must follow while conducting the EA. Draft guidelines were recently prepared by
CNSC and have been issued for public review and comment (see Attachment No. 1).
The draft guidelines are supplemented by a detailed "Project Description" document
prepared by OPG (a copy of which is available for viewing through the CAO's Office).
To assist with the review and analysis of the draft guidelines, staff contracted Acres &
Associated (Acres), a consulting firm with technical experience in environmental
assessment. Acres also recently assisted the Municipality of Clarington with its review
of the draft EA guidelines prepared by CNSC for the Darlington Waste Management
Facility. A number of changes that Acres requested during the Darlington process have
been incorporated by CNSC into the draft guidelines for Pickering.
Comments on the Draft EA Guidelines
Acres' reviewed that draft EA guidelines prepared by CNSC. Their observations and
comments on the guidelines are attached as Attachment No. 2, and are summarized
below.
General Observations
CNSC should use the term "temporary" in describing this project so that in time it
does not become the permanent solution for the disposal of nuclear waste. As
well, additional information is needed on the long-term integrity of the dry storage
containers.
Report CAO 09-02
Draft EA Guidelines
Date:
Waste Management Facility Expansion
November 25, 2002
Page 4
The City of Pickering needs to be directly involved in the review process. It
should not be categorized as part of the general public.
The draft guidelines contain a certain amount of duplication and ambiguity in
terminology, and the sequential steps do not closely mirror the CEAA process.
Specific Comments
The terms "environmental assessment", "assessment", "screening", and
"screening assessment" appear throughout the document and the use of so
many similar terms is confusing. The appropriate single term "environmental
screening" should only appear since that is the type of assessment that is being
undertaken.
The word "temporary" should be included when referring to this project, in order
to ensure it is not misinterpreted as the permanent solution to nuclear waste
storage (section 2.0 Background).
The phrase "potentially significant adverse" should be included to the wording
that addresses environmental or public concerns (section 3.0 Application of the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act).
Three locations are being considered by OPG for the construction of the new
Waste Management Facility within an area of the PNGS site. Therefore, the EA
Guidelines should include wording that addresses the review of alternate sites
and waste transfer routes (section 8.0 Factors to be Considered in the
Screening).
Reference to "Malfunctions and Accidents" is appropriate but not in this Item
because it already appears in another area of the Draft Guideline (section 9.0
Assessment Methodology).
The long-term integrity of the dry storage containers (DSCs) possess concern
and therefore the Guidelines should include a requirement to address the
following (section 9.0 Assessment Methodology):
a)
b)
c)
d)
Thermal stress induced concrete cracking (heat from the decay of
radioactivity in the used fuel);
Radiation induced concrete deterioration such as radiolysis of
moisture in concrete;
Concrete aging;
Corrosion and hydriding of metal components in the DSC.
Report CAO 09-02
Draft EA Guidelines
Date:
Waste Management Facility Expansion
November 25, 2002
Page 5
10.
Discrepancy exists between the Draft Guidelines and the Project Description
regarding the Preliminary Decommissioning Plan. The Guidelines appropriately
include the requirement for such a plan while the Project Description does not.
The same holds true for some additional matters like inventories of nuclear
substances, other hazardous materials, etc. (section 9.0 Assessment
Methodology).
Considerable duplication regarding the significances of effects appears in Item
9.0 and should be better organized to place the items in sequential order.
(section 9.0 Assessment Methodology).
The EA Guidelines require a statement that confirms that emergency
management issues are to be specifically and appropriately addressed by the EA
without compromising the need for secrecy. (section 9.0 Assessment
Methodology).
The steps that are listed note the involvement of federal and provincial
authorities and public and should also include reference to municipalities in
regarding to their roles in the EA (section 10 Environmental Assessment
Process).
Additional Comment On The Draft EA Guidelines
Staff concur with the observations and comments provided by Acres. We have also
reviewed the draft EA guidelines and have an additional recommendation for the
consideration of CNSC.
The project, as described, is an expansion to the existing dry fuel storage facility at
PNGS. It allows for the on-site storage of up to 900 dry fuel containers. Yet the
expansion should not be viewed as a "stand-alone" project. If approved, it would more
than double the number of dry fuel storage containers permitted at PNGS to over 1500
containers.
In addition to Acres comments, it is therefore requested that CNSC amend the EA
guidelines to explicitly acknowledge this fact, and require the EA process to include an
assessment of the potential cumulative impacts caused by the expansion, taking into
consideration the existing dry fuel storage facility on site, and the environment impacts
associated with the existing facility.
Report CAO 09-02
Draft EA Guidelines
Date: November 25, 2002
Waste Management Facility Expansion Page 6
Attachments:
Draft EA Guidelines (Scope of Project and Assessment) Environmental
Assessment of the Proposed Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II
Pickering, Ontario
2. Acres & Associated Draft EA Guidelines Comments to City of Pickering
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
~i~_A.L. ,(,Joe) HunWicks
'/'3~" - Emergency Response
Coordinator
Chief Administrative Officer
Thomas E. Me[ymuk/""'
Division Head, Corp(~rate Projects & Policy
TJQ:ah
Attachments
Copy: Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
J \P&ECO\SHARE\UTIL\UT3521\Draft Guidelines Report to Committe of the Whole.2.doc
Recommended for the considerat.~on of
Pickering C!~.~ Council ,~./~' ,,~
Th~s J. Q~inn, - ' "" ' '
ATTACHMENT,~L I TO REPORT #~..." c~%-c~ ~
Draft EA Guidelines
(Scope of Project and Assessment)
Environmental Assessment of the Proposed
Pickering Waste Management Facility
Phase II
Pickering, Ontario
Prepared by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
October 2002
ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE ..................................................................................................... 3
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 3
APPLICATION OF THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT ACT ........................................................................................ 4
IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL
EXPERT DEPARTMENTS .......................................................................... 5
DELEGATION OF ASSESSMENT STUDIES TO ONTARIO POWER
GENERATION .............................................................................................. 5
PUBLIC REGISTRY ..................................................................................... 5
SCOPE OF THE PROJECT .......................................................................... 6
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE SCREENING ......................... 6
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ..............................................................
9.1 Structure of the Screening Report ......................................................
9.2 Specific Information Requirements ...................................................
9.2.1
9.2.2
9.2.3
9.2.4
9.2.5
9.2.6
9.2.7
9.2.8
9.2.9
7
7
8
Project Description ................................................................... 8
Spatial & Temporal Boundaries of the Assessment ............ 10
Description of the Existing Environment ............................ 13
Assessment and Mitigation of Environmental Effects .......... 14
Assessment of Cumulative Effects ...................................... 17
Assessment of the Effect on the Capacity of Renewable
Resources ............................................................................. 17
Significance of the Residual Effects ..................................... 17
Stakeholder Consultation ..................................................... 18
Follow-up Program .............................................................. 18
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS ........................................ 19
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISION .......... 20
CONTACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT .................................................... 20
REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 20
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................ 21
ATTACHMENT # ~._L._.._,TO FtEPOIq],' # ~-o~-Cb~
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on the scope of the environmental
assessment (EA) to be conducted of the proposed Picketing Waste Management Facility
(PWMF) Phase II Project in Pickering, Ontario. The facility proposed by Ontario Power
Generation Inc (OPG) would be an expansion of the existing PVv~VIF to accommodate used fuel
from Picketing Nuclear Generating Stations (PNGS) A and B to the end of the planned 40-year
service life of the PNGS. OPG has submitted a project description for the proposal to the CNSC.
A federal environmental assessment is required under the provisions of the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Under the CEAA, the scope of the project and the
scope of the factors included in the assessment are to be determined by the Responsible
Authority which in this case is the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).
The EA Guidelines will describe the basis for the conduct of the EA, and focus the assessment
on relevant issues and concerns. The document will also provide specific direction to the
proponent, OPG, on how to document the technical environmental assessment study which will
be delegated to them by the CNSC staff pursuant to subsection 17(1) of the CEAA. In addition,
the Guidelines will provide a means of communicating the CNSC's environmental assessment
process to stakeholders.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Ontario Power Generation Inc. submitted notice to the CNSC of its intention to apply for a
licence to construct a waste management facility for the dry storage of used fuel; to transfer
loaded welded Dry Storage Containers (DSCs) from PWMF I to the new storage facility; and to
operate and maintain the storage buildings comprising the facility.
The PWMF Phase II construction, if approved, would be authorized by an amendment of an
existing licence for the Class lB Nuclear Facility, pursuant to subsection 24(2) of the Nuclear
Safety and Control Act (NSCA). The transfer of loaded welded DSCs would also be authorized
through an amendment to this licence. OPG must comply with the requirements of the NSCA
and its regulations.
The environmental assessment to be completed under CEAA will provide part of the information
that the CNSC will use in considering OPG's licence application. The application will also be
subjected to a thorough evaluation under the provisions of the NSCA and its regulations. That
includes a detailed safety review and a licensing process that affords the public the opportunity
to provide input to the Commission prior to any licensing decision being made on the proposed
construction.
3.0
ATTACHMENT#_ \ .... TO REPORT
APPLICATION OF THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
The CNSC staff determined, pursuant to paragraph 5 (1) (d) of the CEAA, that a federal
environmental assessment of the proposed PWMF Phase II is required before the CNSC can
license the project. The CNSC is the Responsible Authority under the CEAA for the purposes of
the assessment.
With the promulgation of the NSCA, amendments to the regulations under the CEAA are needed
to replace references to the Atomic Energy Control Act and its regulations by appropriate
reference to the provisions of the NSCA. Pending completion of the CEAA amendment process,
section 44 of the Interpretation Act deems references to the former legislation to be references to
the analogous provisions of the NSCA.
The former provision authorizing amendment of an existing licence for a nuclear facility was
subsection 27(1) of the Atomic Energy Control Regulations. That provision is listed as a CEAA
'trigger' under the Law List Regulations. Reading the NSCA in analogous fashion, authorization
of the amendment permitting construction of the PWMF Phase II would be a 'trigger' for the
CEAA under the Law List Regulations.
There are no other CEAA 'triggers', such as funding, being a proponent or disposing of an
interest in land to support the proposed project, that involve the CNSC.
The proposed licensing action would involve authorization of activities relating to a physical
work, namely the construction of the PWMF Phase II, and the transfer of loaded welded Dry
Storage Containers (DSCs) from PWMF I to the new storage facility. Thus, there is a 'project'
for the purposes of the CEAA. For the proposed project, there are no identified exclusions from
environmental assessment pursuant to section 7 of the CEAA and Schedule I of the Exclusion
List Regulations of the CEAA.
Accordingly, CNSC authorization of the licensing for activities at the PWMF Phase II will
require that a federal environmental assessment be conducted pursuant to the CEAA.
The project is not of a type identified in the Comprehensive Study List Regulations of the CEAA.
The location of the facility is proposed to be entirely within the licensed area of the Pickering
Nuclear Generating Station.
At this time, CNSC staff is not aware of any potential environmental effects or public concerns
associated with this project which would warrant a need to have it referred to a mediator or
review panel pursuant to section 25 of the CEAA. Thus, pursuant to subsection 18(1) of CEAA,
the CNSC is required to ensure the conduct of a screening environmental assessment of the
project and the preparation of a Screening Report before the proposed licensing decision can be
made pursuant to the NSCA.
4
4.0
ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT O_ ro_
IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL EXPERT
DEPARTMENTS
The CNSC is the only Responsible Authority under the CEAA identified for this screening.
Through application of the CEAA Federal Coordination Regulations, Health Canada,
Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
have been identified as Federal Authorities for the purpose of providing expert assistance to
CNSC staff during the environmental assessment.
The CNSC staff have confirmed with the Ontario Ministry of Environment that there are no
provincial environmental assessment requirements under the Ontario Environmental Assessment
Act that are applicable to the proposal.
5.0
DELEGATION OF ASSESSMENT STUDIES TO ONTARIO POWER
GENERATION
The CNSC, based on authority given it in subsection 17(1) of the CEAA, will delegate to Ontario
Power Generation the conduct of technical support studies for the environmental assessment, the
development and implementation of a public consultation program, and the preparation of an EA
study report.
OPG will submit its technical support studies and report to CNSC for review and acceptance by
CNSC staff, and by Provincial and Federal Authorities. Based on the information and analysis in
the accepted EA study report, CNSC staff will prepare an EA Screening Report. The draft EA
Screening Report will be made available for public review and comment. CNSC staff will
submit a revised EA Screening Report to the Commission for consideration and decision. The
public will also have an opPortunity to comment and make interventions before the Commission
on the final EA Screening Report.
6.0 PUBLIC REGISTRY
The CNSC has established a public registry for the assessment as required by section 55 of the
CEAA. This includes identification of the assessment in the Federal Environmental Assessment
Index (FEAI), which can be accessed on the Intemet Web site of the Agency (www. ceaa. gc.ca).
The FEAI number for this project is 33828.
As part of the registry, the CNSC also maintains a list of documents pertaining to the
environmental assessment. Interested parties may obtain copies of specific documents on the list
by contacting the CNSC (see section 11.0).
ATTACHMENT# \ TO REPORT
1
7.0 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
In establishing the scope of a project for an assessment under the CEAA, the physical works
(e.g., facilities) that are involved in the proposal and any specific undertaking that will be carried
out in relation to those physical works must be determined. The physical works involved in this
project are the storage buildings to be built for the dry storage containers; all facilities, systems
and activities required for the construction and operation of PWMF Phase II; and the facilities,
systems and activities involved in the transfer of loaded welded DSCs from PWMF I to the
storage buildings in PWMF II. A preliminary decommissioning plan for PWMF II will be
included in the assessment.
Associated operations and activities that are within the scope of the project include:
· Preparation of the site and construction of the storage buildings
o Site clearing, excavation, grading and compaction
o Construction of foundation and inactive drainage system
o Site service hook-ups
o Construction of the storage buildings
o Site paving and landscaping
· Preparation of systems and facilities involved in the transfer of loaded welded DSCs
o Road construction and/or upgrading
o Transfer of loaded welded DSCs from the Processing Building or Storage
Buildings in PWMF I to the Storage Buildings in PWMF II
· Installation of perimeter fence and security system
o Facilities and systems for maintaining security of the site
· Operation and maintenance of the PWMF II
o Radiation and security monitoring, inspection and maintenance
The purpose of the proposed project, as described in the Project Description (reference 1), is to
provide additional capacity for interim storage of PNGS used fuel until a long-term management
facility becomes available. The long-term management of radioactive waste, including irradiated
nuclear fuel, is being developed through separate federal legislation. No final options or sites
have been defined or approved as yet. Consequently, it is premature to examine long-term waste
management alternatives as part of the scope of this project. Provision of national long-term
waste disposal facilities is not within the scope of the PWMF Phase II environmental assessment.
8.0 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE SCREENING
The scope of the screening assessment under the CEAA must include all the factors identified in
paragraphs 16(1) (a) to (d) of the CEAA, and, as provided for under paragraph 16(1) (e), any
other matter that the CNSC requires to be considered.
Paragraphs 16(1) (a) to (d) require that the following factors be included in the screening:
X the environmental effects (see section 13.0 - Glossary of Terms) of the project, including
8
ATTACHMENT# \ .... TO REPORT#~~.~
the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents that may occur in connection with
the project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the
project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried
out;
X the significance of the effects identified above;
X
comments from the public that are received in accordance with the CEAA and its
regulations; and
X
measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any
significant adverse environmental effects of the project.
As allowed for in subsection 16(1) (e) of the CEA& the CNSC will also consider the purpose of
the project, the need for, and requirements of, a follow-up program in respect of the project, and
the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the project to
meet the needs of the present and those of the future.
Additional or more specific factors or issues to address in the EA may be identified following
consultation with the expert federal authorities and other stakeholders during the conduct of the
EA.
9.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
9.1 Structure of the Screening Report
A recommended structure for the Screening Report is used below as a framework for explaining
how the assessment factors are to be systematically considered in the screening environmental
assessment study report. Information about the project and the existing environment is necessary
to permit that systematic consideration; the results of the consideration will be documented in the
subsequent Screening Report to be prepared by CNSC staff.
The parts of the assessment that are to be delegated to Ontario Power Generation, in accordance
with subsection 17(1) of the CEAA, are to be documented in the form of a technical EA study
report in a manner consistent with this structure. The OPG EA study report will be attached to
the Screening Report as a support document.
Section Headings for the Screening Report:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Introduction
Application of the CEAA
Scope of the Project
Scope of the Assessment
Project Description
Spatial and Temporal Boundaries of the Assessment
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
ATTACHMENT# \ TO REPORT# h,o-c -c
9\
Description of the Existing Environment
Assessment and Mitigation of Environmental Effects
- description of assessment methodology
- effects of construction
- effects of normal operations, malfunctions and accidents, and natural hazards
Cumulative Environmental Effects
Significance of Residual Effects
Stakeholder Consultation
Follow-up Program
Conclusions and Recommendations for Decision
References
9.2 Specific Information Requirements
9.2.1 Project Description
The screening report will include a clear and comprehensive statement of the purpose of the
project. In this case, the purpose of the PWMF Phase II Project is to provide additional capacity
for the dry storage of used fuel bundles.
An adequate description of the project is necessary to permit a reasonable consideration in the
screening of the environmental effects of the project. The project description will be a thorough
description of the operational, physical, chemical and radiological characteristics of the facility.
It will include a proposed schedule for the construction, operation and on-going maintenance of
the facility. It will include a description of the activities involved in the transfer of used fuel
bundles in welded DSCs from the processing building or storage buildings of Phase I to the
PWMF Phase II, and of the additional infrastructure required for these activities to occur.
Furthermore, the project description will include a detailed description of Ontario Power
Generation, including its ownership, organization, structure and technical capabilities.
The main objective of the project description is to identify and characterize those specific
components and activities that have the potential to interact with, and thus result in a likely
change or disruption to, the surrounding environment, during construction, during normal
operations, during malfunctions and accidents.
Construction and Normal Operations
The following information will be provided in summary form; where applicable, reference may
be made to more detailed information:
the location of the project components;
the basic configuration, layout, shape, size, design and operation of the facility and
supporting infrastructure
ATTACHMENT# \ , TO REPORT
the size of the Phase II storage facility based on the projection of used fuel volumes
expected to arise from the operation of the PNGS;
a description of the transportation operation including a description of the transporter
used to transfer the loaded containers to the PWMG Phase II
- a description of any necessary road construction or upgrades
- site preparation and construction activities
- the inventories of nuclear substances and other hazardous materials to be stored at the
facility, including locations and storage methods;
- the sources, types and quantities of radioactive, hazardous and non-hazardous waste
predicted to be generated by the project;
- the on-site processes for the collection, handling, transport, storage and disposal of
radioactive, hazardous and non-hazardous wastes to be generated by the project;
- the predicted sources, quantities and points of release from the project of emissions
and effluents containing nuclear substances and hazardous materials;
- the sources and characteristics of any fire hazards;
- the sources and characteristics of any noise, odour, dust and other likely nuisance
effects from the project;
- the key components of the facility relevant to environmental performance and safety
during the siting and construction activities, and during the subsequent operations;
- the sources and characteristics of any potential risks to workers, the public or the
environment from the project;
- key operational procedures relevant to protection of workers, the public and the
environment relating to the project;
- the predicted doses to workers involved with the associated operations and activities
that are within the scope of this project;
- the key components of the facility and its physical security systems (excluding
prescribed information) that are relevant to management of malfunctions and
accidents that may occur during the siting and construction activities, and during the
subsequent operations; and
a description of the relevant organizational and management structure, and staff
qualification requirements with emphasis on safety and environmental management
programs.
Malfunctions and Accidents
This section should include:
a description of specific important malfunction and accident events that have a
reasonable probability of occurring during the life of the project, including an
explanation of how these events were identified for the purpose of this environmental
assessment;
- a description of the source, quantity, mechanism, rate, form and characteristics of
9
ATTACHMENT#,, \ TO
contaminants and other materials (physical, chemical and radiological) likely to be
released to the surrounding environment during the postulated malfunction and
accident events; and
a description of any contingency, clean-up or restoration work in the surrounding
environment that would be required during, or immediately following, the postulated
malfunction and accident events.
Preliminary Decommissioning Plan
A preliminary decommissioning plan for the facility will be included in the assessment. The
preliminary plan will document, as appropriate, the preferred decommissioning strategy and end-
state objectives; the major decontamination, disassembly and remediation steps; the approximate
quantities and types of waste generated; and an overview of the principal hazards and protection
strategies envisioned for decommissioning. However, as indicated in section 7.0, long term
waste management options will not be included. The long-term management of radioactive
waste, including irradiated nuclear fuel, is being developed through separate federal legislation.
9.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries of the Assessment
The consideration of the environmental effects in the screening needs to be conceptually
bounded in both time and space. This is more commonly known as defining the assessment
study areas and time frames, or spatial and temporal boundaries of the screening.
The geographic study areas for this screening must encompass the areas of the environment that
can be reasonably expected to be affected by the project, or which may be relevant to the
assessment of cumulative environmental effects. Study areas will encompass all relevant
components of the environment including the people, land, water, air and other aspects of the
natural and human environment. Study boundaries will be defined taking into account
ecological, technical and social/political considerations.
The following geographic study areas are suggested:
Site Study Area: The Site Study Area includes PWMF II Siting Area and the area
encompassed by the associated transfer routes. (Figure 1).
Local Study Area: the Local Study Area is defined as that area existing outside the
site study area boundary, where there is a reasonable potential for
immediate impacts due to either ongoing normal activities, or to
possible abnormal operating conditions. It includes the facilities,
buildings and infrastructure at the Pickering NGS site, including
the licensed exclusion zone for the site on land and within Lake
Ontario The outer boundaries of the Local Study Area encompass
an area that includes lands within the City of Pickering, the town
of Ajax, and the eastern part of Toronto closest to the Picketing
NGS site, as well as a portion of Lake Ontario abutting, and used
10
ATTACHMENT# ,\ ..... TO REPORT
\\ ~ ~ ~
ATTACHMENT#.,,,~ TO REPORT
~¢.,%~\~ ~' c~ \
O.q4
ATTACHMENT # i ~ TO REPORT #~,1~ o~¥ o~
by, those communities for such activities as recreation, water
supply and waste water discharge. The boundaries may change as
appropriate following a preliminary assessment of the spatial
extent of potential impacts (Figure 2).
Regional Study Area: the Regional Study Area is defined as the area wherein there is
at least the potential for cumulative and socio-economic effects,
and it includes the lands, communities and portions of Lake
Ontario around the Pickering NGS that may be relevant to the
assessment of any wider-spread effects of the project (Figure 2).
The temporal boundaries for this assessment must establish over what period of time the project-
specific and cumulative effects are to be considered. The initial time frame for the assessment
will be the duration of the project; that is, the planned duration of the construction and operation
phases, and of decommissioning based on a preliminary decommissioning plan.
Both the study areas and time frames will remain flexible during the assessment to allow the full
extent of a likely environmental effect to be considered in the screening. For instance, should the
results of modelling demonstrate that there is dispersion of a contaminant that is likely to cause
an environmental effect beyond the boundaries identified above, it will be taken into account in
the assessment.
9.2.3 Description of the Existing Environment
A description of the existing environment is needed to determine the likely interactions between
the project and the surrounding environment and, likewise, between the environment and the
project. Both the biophysical environment and the socio-economic (human, cultural)
environment are to be considered.
An initial screening of likely project-environment interactions will be considered in identifying
the relevant components of the environment that need to be described.
The general components of the environment that should be described in the various study areas
include, but should not necessarily be limited to:
meteorology and climate;
air quality;
noise;
physiography and topography;
soil quality;
geology;
seismic activity;
hydrogeology;
groundwater quality (physical and chemical);
surface hydrology;
surface water quality (physical and chemical);
13
ATTACHMENT#. _TO REPORT
aquatic ecology; and
terrestrial ecology.
The description of the human components of the above environment should include, but should
not necessarily be limited to:
population (including relevant demograPhic characteristics);
economic base;
community infrastructure and services;
renewable and non-renewable resource use;
existing and planned land use;
health;
heritage, cultural and archaeological sites;
recreation areas; and
use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons.
Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) in the existing environment will be identified and used
as specific assessment end-points. VECs are environmental attributes or components identified
as having a legal, scientific, cultural, economic or aesthetic value. The VECs proposed in the EA
methodology for this project will be reviewed and accepted by CNSC staff in the early phases of
the EA study.
The required level of detail in the description of the existing environment will be less where the
potential interactions between the project and various components of the environment are weak
or remote in time and space.
Relevant existing information may be used to describe the environment. Where that information
is significantly lacking, additional research and field studies may be required to complete the
screening assessment. Any work done by OPG to fill identified gaps in information will be
reviewed by CNSC staff as progress is being made.
9.2.4 Assessment and Mitigation of Environmental Effects
The consideration of environmental effects in the screening will be done in a systematic and
traceable manner. The assessment methodology will be summarized. The results of the
assessment process should be clearly documented using summary matrices and tabular
summaries where appropriate.
Assessment of Effects Caused by the Project
The assessment will be conducted in a manner consistent with the following general method:
1)
Identify the potential interactions between the project activities and the existing
environment during construction and normal operations, and during identified relevant
malfunctions and accidents.
14
AII'ACHMENT#... \ Tr..} FIEPOi-.ri
2)
3)
Specific attention will be given to interactions with the identified VECs.
In this step, the standard design and operational aspects from the project description that
prevent or significantly reduce the likelihood of interactions occurring with the environment
should be reviewed. Opportunities for additional impact mitigation measures are addressed
in step 3 below.
Describe the resulting changes that likely would occur to the components of the
environment and VECs as a result of the identified interactions with the project.
Each environmental change must be described in terms of whether it is direct, indirect,
positive or adverse.
Identified changes in socio-economic conditions and various aspects of culture, health,
heritage, archaeology and traditional land and resource use may be limited to those that are
likely to result from the predicted changes that the project is likely to cause to the
environment. The consideration of public views, including any perceived changes attributed
to the project should be recognized in the assessment methodology.
For each identified effect, the predicted magnitude, duration, frequency, timing, probability
of occurrence, ecological and social context, geographic extent, and the degree of
reversibility, should be considered in determining if it is a likely adverse effect.
Quantitative as well as qualitative methods may be used to identify and describe the likely
adverse environmental effects. Professional expertise and judgment may be used in
interpreting the results of the analyses. The basis of predictions and interpretation of results,
as well as the importance of remaining uncertainties, will be clearly documented in the EA
study report.
Identify and describe mitigation measures that may be applied to each likely adverse effect
(or sequence of effects), and that are technically and economically feasible.
Mitigation strategies should reflect precautionary and preventive principles. That is,
emphasis should be placed on tempering or preventing the cause or source of an effect, or
sequence of effects, before addressing how to reverse or compensate for an effect once it
Occurs.
Where the prevention of effects cannot be assured, or the effectiveness of preventive
mitigation measures is uncertain, further mitigation measures in the form of contingency
responses, including emergency response plans, will be described.
Where cost/benefit analyses are used to determine economic feasibility of mitigation
measures, the details of those analyses will be included or referenced.
4) Describe the significance of the environmental effects that likely will occur as a result of
15
ATTACHMENT#, \ TO
the project, having taken into account the implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures.
The criteria for judging and describing the significance of the residual (post-mitigation)
effects will include: magnitude, duration, frequency, timing, probability of occurrence,
ecological and social context, geographic extent, and degree of reversibility. Specific
assessment criteria proposed in the EA methodology for this project will be reviewed and
accepted by CNSC staff in the early phases of the EA study.
Existing regulatory and industry standards and guidelines are relevant as points of reference
for judging significance. However, professional expertise and judgement should also be
applied in judging the significance of any effect. All applicable federal and provincial laws
must be respected.
The analysis must be documented in a manner that readily enables conclusions on the
significance of the environmental effects to be drawn. The CNSC, as the responsible
authority for the EA project, must document in the screening report a conclusion, taking into
account the mitigation measures, as to whether the project is likely to cause significant
adverse environmental effects.
Assessment of Effects of the Environment on the Project
The assessment must also take into account how the environment could adversely affect the
project; for example, from severe weather or seismic events. The assessment must also take into
account any potential effects of climate change on the project, including an assessment of
whether the project is sensitive to changes in climate conditions during its life span.
This part of the assessment will be conducted in a step-wise fashion, similar to that described for
the foregoing assessment of the project effects. The possible important interactions between the
natural hazards and the project will be first identified, followed by an assessment of the effects of
those interactions, the available additional mitigation measures, and the significance of any
remaining likely adverse environmental effects.
Assessment of Effects of the Project on the Capacity of Renewable Resources
The assessment must also take into account whether the likely project-related environmental
effects will impact on the capacity of renewable resources to meet the needs of the present and
those of the future.
The potential interactions between the project and the environment will be identified and
assessed in order to determine the likelihood of interactions between the project and resource
sustainability.
16
038
9.2.5
ATTACHMENT#, ~ ..... TO REPORT
Assessment of Cumulative Effects
The effects of the project must be considered together with those of other projects and activities
that have been, or will be carried out, and for which the effects are expected to overlap with
those of the project (i.e., overlap in same geographic area and time). These are referred to as
cumulative environmental effects.
An identification of the specific projects and activities considered in the cumulative effects will
be included in the Screening Report. In general, the cumulative effects assessment will consider
the combined effects of the project with the neighbouring or regional industries and other
developments.
The information available to assess the environmental effects from other projects can be
expected to be more conceptual and less detailed as those effects become more remote in
distance and time to the project, or where information about another project or activity is not
available. The consideration of cumulative environmental effects may therefore be at a more
general level of detail than that considered in the assessment of the direct project-environment
interactions.
Where potentially significant adverse cumulative effects are identified, additional mitigation
measures may be necessary.
9.2.6 Assessment of the Effects on the Capacity of Renewable and Non-renewable Resources
The assessment must also take into account whether the likely project-related environmental
effects will impact on the capacity of renewable and non-renewable resources to meet the needs
of the present and those of the future.
The potential interactions between the project and the environment will be identified and
assessed in order to determine the likelihood of interactions between the project and resource
sustainability.
9.2.7 Significance of the Residual Effects
The preceding steps in the screening will consider the significance of the environmental effects
of the project on the environment, the natural hazards on the project, project malfunctions and
accidents, and other projects and activities that could cause cumulative effects.
The screening will consider all of these effects in coming to a final conclusion as to whether the
project, taking into account the mitigation measures, will likely cause significant adverse
environmental effects. The CNSC, as the responsible authority, will document this conclusion in
the screening report.
17
ATTACHMENT # REPORT
9.2.8 Stakeholder Consultation
The assessment will include notification of, and consultation with, the potentially affected
stakeholders, including the local public. Various media will be used to inform and engage
individuals, interest groups, local governments and other stakeholders in the assessment. Ontario
Power Generation will be expected to hold appropriate public consultation meetings. The
stakeholder consultation program of Ontario Power Generation will be continuously monitored
by the CNSC staff throughout the environmental assessment process.
Throughout the environmental assessment process, various stakeholders, including the following,
will be consulted:
federal government
provincial government
local government
established committees
general public
First Nations and aboriginal communities
neighbouring residents
local businesses
non-government organizations and interest groups
The Screening Report will contain a summary review of the comments received during this
environmental assessment process. The Screening Report will indicate how issues identified
have been considered in the completion of the assessment, or where relevant, how they may be
addressed in any subsequent licensing and compliance process.
The CNSC will also establish a public consultation process in the review and decision-making
process for the Screening Report. This will include opportunities for the public to review and
comment to CNSC staff on the draft Screening Report, as well as to comment and make
interventions before the Commission on the final Screening Report.
9.2.9 Follow-up Program
A preliminary design and implementation plan for a follow-up program will be included in the
Screening Report.
The purpose of the follow-up program is to assist in determining if the environmental and
cumulative effects of the project are as predicted in the Screening Report. It is also to confirm
whether the impact mitigation measures are effective, and to determine if any new mitigation
strategies may be required. The design of the program will be appropriate to the scale of the
project and the issues addressed, in the EA.
18
ATTACHMENT # ~.._L_I'O REPORI
\%
If a licence is issued to Ontario Power Generation under the NSCA, the CNSC licensing and
compliance program will be used as the mechanism for ensuring the final design and
implementation of any follow-up program and the reporting of program results. The program
would be based on regulatory principles of compliance, adaptive management, reporting and
analysis.
10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The following points indicate the key steps likely to be followed by CNSC staff during the
environmental assessment process. Some steps have already been completed:
Determination of the application of CEAA to the project, including application of the
Federal Coordination Regulation; establishment of Public Registry; and stakeholder
notification (completed)
Preparation of working draft of EA Guidelines; distribution of draft EA Guidelines to
proponent and federal and provincial authorities; receipt of comments from federal and
provincial authorities and preparation of draft for public comment (completed)
· Distribution of draft EA Guidelines for public comment (in progress)
CNSC staff review and disposition of comments received; revision of Draft EA Guidelines
for submission to the Commission of CNSC; Commission of CNSC approval of EA
Guidelines
CNSC staff delegation of consultative and technical studies to the proponent
Distribution of draft EA study report to review team (CNSC staff, federal and provincial
authorities); revision, as appropriate, of EA study report; CNSC staff preparation of draft
screening report
Public review and comment on draft screening report; CNSC staff review and
dispositioning of public comments; CNSC completion of screening report;
CNSC staff preparation of screening report CMD for Commission consideration; Public
notification of Commission Hearing
CMD presentation of screening report to Commission Hearing (Day 1)
Commission Hearing (Day 2)
Commission Hearing Record of Decision
19
11.0
ATTACHMENT#
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISION
The Screening Report will present a conclusion by CNSC as to whether the project is likely to
cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account the appropriate mitigation
measures. CNSC staff will make recommendations to the Commission on taking decisions on the
environmental assessment and project-related public concems, consistent with section 20 of the
CEAA. Decisions by the Commission will be made through Commission hearing procedures.
11.0 CONTACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT
Anyone wishing to obtain additional information or provide comments on any aspect of the
environmental assessment being conducted on the proposed construction and operation of the
Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II may do so through the following CNSC staff
contacts:
Ms. Heather Humphries
Environmental Assessment Specialist
Processing Facilities and Technical Support Division
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
280 Slater Street, P.O. Box 1046
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9
Phone: 1-800-668-5284
Fax: (613) 995-5086
Intemet: ceaainfo~cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca
Ms. Kay Klassen
Licensing Officer
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
280 Slater Street
P.O. Box 1046
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9
Phone: 1-800-668-5284
Fax: (613) 995-5086
Intemet: ceaainfo~cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca
20
12.0
1.
ATTACHMENT # REPORT
REFERENCES
Letter, R. Dicemi (OPG) to C. Maloney (CNSC), January 31, 2002. "Intent to Construct
Phase II of the Picketing Waste Management Facility".
Letter, K.E. Nash (OPG) to K. Klassen (CNSC), June 12, 2002. Picketing Waste
Management Facility Phase II Project - Project Description for Environmental Assessment
Scoping", with attached report, "Picketing Waste Management Facility Phase II Project -
Project Description (June 2002).
13.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
1. "environmental effect" means, in respect of a project,
(a) any change that the project may cause in the environment, including any effect of any'
such change on health and socio-economic conditions, on physical and cultural heritage,
on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by aboriginal persons,
or on any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or
architectural significance, and
(b) any change to the project that may be caused by the environment,
whether any such change occurs within or outside Canada.
21
November ~3.2002
File: 20(12-5897 -
ATTACHMENT
....... TO REPORT <::>\
E~vironmentnl Scientists
City of Pickmng
Picketing Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Picketing, Ontario
L IV 6K7
Attention:
Mr, A.L, (Joe)Hm~wicks
Emergency Response Coordinator
Re:
PEER REVIEW
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR
PROPOSED PICKERING WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY (PHASE Il)
De;q' Mr. l,tunwiCks:
Pt ease fin d attached om' commen ts on th e "[)ra ft En v iron mental Ass ess ment Gui del ines" document
(October ~002) that the Canad~ an Nuclear Safety £:omm]ss~on (£,NS¢) prepared for Ontario Power
Generation (OPG) in connection with the Proposed PiCketing Waste Management Faci lity (Phase II),
In general, om comments m'c 'threefold,
Our flint general commen, t concerns fl~c fact thru this project is designed to be a tempm'm.w solution
until a long term solution is found for the disposal of the PNGS-A m~d -B waste materials.
Therefore, (i) we are urging adoptio~ of the tm]n tcmporaE~: in describing this project in the EA
documents so that in time it does not become the pennmmnt solution and (ii) are requesting that
infommtion be provided in the EA documents concerning the factors that affect long-/em~ integrity
of d~e DSCs.
Our secm'~d general comment is in re:fcrence to thc Mun/cipaliiy being a sepm'ate entity fi'om 'the
general Btblic. The Municipality is, and needs to be. dh'ectly involved in fl~e review process m~d in
out' opinion should not be categorized in the Guidelines or subsequent EA documents ms part of the
general public,
Our th/rd general comment concerns the fi'amework of the Draft Guidelines vm'sus the CEAA
process, Although we are com£o~table that the Guidelines m'e suflqcient and adequate to ensm'e that
the EA documents will be prepared in accordance with d~e CEAA process, we m;e of the view that
th ere is a cmtain amotmt of duplication and am big uity in tem~inology in th c G u ictelines and th at th e
sequential steps do not closely rain,or the CEAA process. Theref~n'c, we feel that the Guidelines
ATTACHMENT#,,c TO REPORT
November 13, 2002
The City of Picketing - 2
occasionally make it more difficult fbr the lay person to underst:'md the CEAA fi'amework thru is
being provided t:o OPG in preparing their EA documentS:
We h ope our corem ents are o f assistance in addressing the concerns of' th e M un icipalit:y~ and in
fom~ulating your Staff" Repo~l and reply to the CNSC.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (905) 374-4470, shoutd yott have any questions co~ccrning
the above
Yours truly,
ACRES & ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL LINIITED
Brttce G. Be~nett. M.Sc.
Project Manager
BGB
Attach
M :\Aat~dA\P~oject~200~,025897\Repor t~,,covedW~repor [^fir~aL wr~
ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # ~--..'(~-(:I:,~- (~
ACRES & ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED
COMMENTS ON "DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES"
FOR PROPOSED PICKERING WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY (PHASE II)
GENERAL COMMENTS
We note throughout the document that the terms "environmental assessment",
"assessment", "screening", and "screening assessment" appear to be used
interchangeably. It would reduce the confusion to municipal staff, councilors and the
public at large if the term "environmental screening" could be used throughout to make it
very clear to all concerned that the CNSC has determined that this is an "environmental
screening" (rather than "a comprehensive study") in accordance with the requirements of
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA).
2 COMMENTS ON "2.0 BACKGROUND"
We recommend that the first sentence of this Section be modified to read "... to apply
for a licence to construct a temporary waste management facility for the dry storage of
used fuel; to transfer .....comprising the facility, until a permanent disposal facility
becomes available."
The City of Pickering (the Municipality) acknowledges that this proposed facility is
Phase II of the originally planned expansion of the existing Pickering Waste Management
Facility (PWMF-I). Nevertheless, the purpose of this facility is to accommodate used
fuel from the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station -A and -B until such time as a long-
term management facility becomes available. In our opinion, emphasizing the word
temporary is consistent with:
the statements made in the last paragraph of Section 7.0 of the Draft EA Guidelines
whereby, on page 6, it is stated that "The long-term management of radioactive waste,
including irradiated nuclear fuel, is being developed through separate federal
legislation" and "Consequently, it is premature to examine long-term waste
management alternatives as part of the scope of this project", and
the statements made under Section 9.0 of the Draft EA Guidelines whereby, on page
10, it is stated that long-term waste management options will not be considered as
part of the Conceptual Decommissioning Plan for the reasons stated above.
3
COMMENTS ON "3.0 APPLICATION OF THE CANADIAN
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT"
We suggest the following modification to the first sentence of the last paragraph of
Section 3.0 of the Draft EA Guidelines: "At this time, CNSC staff is not aware of any
potentially significant adverse environmental effects or public concerns..." This
ATTACHMENT #..~:~,__
ACRES & ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED
COMMENTS ON "DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES"
FOR PROPOSED PICKERING WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY (PHASE II)
clarifies for municipal staff, councilors and the public at large more precisely what would
warrant a referral to a mediator or review panel as per CEAA Section 25.
4
COMMENTS ON "4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER FEDERAL AND
PROVINCIAL EXPERT DEPARTMENTS"
No comments on content/wording of this section.
5
COMMENTS ON "5.0 DELEGATION OF ASSESSMENT STUDIES TO
ONTARIO POWER GENERATION"
No comments on content/wording of this section.
6 COMMENTS ON "6.0 PUBLIC REGISTRY"
No comments on content/wording of this section.
7 COMMENTS ON "7.0 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT"
No comments on content/wording of this section.
8
COMMENTS ON "8.0 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE
SCREENING"
We feel that it is important that the Draft EA Guidelines acknowledge that there are three
sites within the siting area and alternative methods (i.e., transfer routes) to be considered
and assessed. Therefore, we recommend that the first sentence of the third paragraph be
modified to read "... the CNSC will also consider the purpose of the project, the
alternative sites within the PWMF H siting area, alternative transfer routes, the need for,
and requirements of, a follow-up..."
9 COMMENTS ON "9.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY"
We disagree with the last paragraph of Section 9.2.1 regarding the main objective of the
project description. In our opinion, the main objective of the project description is to
simply describe the project (as it already has in the second paragraph of Section 9.2.1)
and not for the reasons provided in the last paragraph of this section. Therefore, we feel
that Section 9.2.1 should only include the "Construction and Normal Operations" and
"Preliminary Decommissioning Plan" subsections. In our opinion, the inclusion of the
"Malfunctions and Accidents" subsection as part of the project description is
inappropriate and is more correctly placed (as it already is) in Section 9.2.5 (Assessment
and Mitigation of Environmental Effects).
We are concerned about the long-term integrity of the dry storage containers (DSCs) over
time since there is no guarantee that a permanent used fuel disposal facility will be
Page 2 of 4
ACRES & ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED ATTACHMENT
COMMENTS ON "DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GUIDELIN~ES
FOR PROPOSED PICKERING WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY (PHASE II) i.)
available even at the end of the 40-year design life of the DSCs. Therefore, on pages 6/7
of the Draft EA Guidelines under the "Construction and Normal Operations" of
Subsection 9.2.1, we would like to see reference made to the provision of more detailed
information concerning the factors that affect long-term integrity. These include:
· Thermal stress induced concrete cracking (heat from the decay of radioactivity in the
used fuel) ~
· Radiation induced concrete deterioration such as radiolysis of moisture in concrete
· Concrete aging
· Corrosion and hydriding of metal components in the DSC
There appears to be a discrepancy between the Draft EA Guidelines and the Pickering
Project Description Report (#92896-REP-07701-00001, June 2002) regarding inclusion
of the Preliminary Decommissioning Plan in the EA. Section 9.2.1 of the Draft EA
Guidelines states "a preliminary decommissioning plan for the facility will be included in
the assessment". However, Section 2.6 of the Project Description Report states
"decommissioning is not part of the scope of the proposed PWMF II Project EA" and
makes reference to the preliminary decommissioning plan of the existing PWMF I.
While this might be acceptable, the apparent discrepancy with the Draft EA Guidelines
should be resolved.
Some of the requirements stated in Section 9.2.1 (Project Description) of the Draft EA
Guidelines do not appear to be included in the Project Description Report (June 2002
version), such as inventories of nuclear substances and other hazardous materials to be
stored at the facility, description of malfunction and accident events. We assume the
Project Description section of the EA report will include all the requirements of the EA
Guidelines.
There is considerable duplication regarding the significance of effects as noted in
Subsections 9.2.4 (2), (4) and 9.2.7. It is recommended that the discussion regarding
significance of effects should be removed from Subsections 9.2.4 (2) and (4) and
incorporated into Subsection 9.2.7 since this is the appropriate sequence of events, i.e.
significance is only determined on residual effects after application of mitigation, where
feasible. Therefore:
On page 15 of the Draft EA Guidelines under Subsection 9.2.4 (2), the third
paragraph commencing "For each identified effect, the predicted magnitude,
duration, frequency, timing,... "should be removed because this is the procedure
for identifying the significance of effects.
Subsection 9.2.4 (4) should be removed in its entirety and the three paragraphs
comprising this subsection should be incorporated into Subsection 9.2.7
"Significance of the Residual Effects".
Page 3 of 4
,
ACRES & ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED ATTACHMENT #~__~__T0 REPORT#~
COMMENTS ON "DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GUlDELINE~
FOR PROPOSED PICKERING WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY (PHASE II)
Recent events have also highlighted the issue of preparedness/response to unforeseen
events (i.e., safeguards against nuclear material diversion or terrorist attacks). It is
recognized that this issue is of utmost concern to both OPG and the CNSC and that the
preparedness/response to these events is a high security matter and not for the public
record. Nevertheless, we feel that a statement is needed in the Draft EA Guidelines that
confirms that this very sensitive issue has/is being addressed by OPG and the CNSC.
10 COMMENTS ON "10.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS"
We recommend the following changes to wording of some of the steps that are listed in
this section to acknowledge the direct participation of the Municipality in the review
process.
· Preparation of working draft of EA Guidelines; distribution of draft EA guidelines
to proponent and federal and provincial authorities; receipt of comments from
federal and provincial authorities and preparation of draft for municipal and
public comment (completed)
· Distribution of draft EA Guidelines for municipal and public comment (in
progress)
· Distribution of draft EA study report to review team (CNSC staff, federal and
provincial authorities) and the Municipalities; revision, as appropriate, of EA
study report and issue to relevant federal, provincial and municipal agencies, and
public notification; CNSC staff preparation of draft screening report
· Municipal and public review and comment on draft screening report; CNSC staff
review and dispositioning of municipal and public comments; CNSC completion
of screening report
11
COMMENTS ON "11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
DECISION"
No comments.
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
1. That Pickering Council receive Report Number CAO 10-02 concerning the Terms of
Reference for Pickering's Growth Management Study;
That Pickering Council endorse the draft Terms of Reference for the Growth
Management Study, as outlined in Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02, and
authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals in accordance with the City's
purchasing policy and procedures; and
3. That the City Clerk forward for information a copy of Report Number CAO 10-02 to
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Region of Durham, the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority, and members of the Working Group.
PICKERING
REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Report Number: CAO 10-02
Date: November 26, 2002
From:
Thomas J. Quinn
Chief Administrative Officer
Subject: Terms of Reference for Pickering's Growth Management Study
Recommendation:
That Pickering Council receive Report Number CAO 10-02 concerning the
Terms of Reference for Pickering's Growth Management Study;
That Pickering Council endorse the draft Terms of Reference for the
Growth Management Study, as outlined in Appendix I to Report Number
CAO 10-02, and authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals in accordance
with the City's purchasing policy and procedures; and
That the City Clerk forward for information a copy of Report Number CAO 10-02
to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Region of Durham, the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and members of the Working Group.
Executive Summary: Draft Terms of Reference for a Growth Management Study
for lands in central Pickering, immediately north of the existing built-up area, have been
prepared for Council's consideration. A Working Group was established to assist staff
in preparing the Terms of Reference, in accordance with Council's direction in
May 2002, and Council's appointments in .July 2002. The Working Group included
representatives of Council, City staff, the Region of Durham, the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, the Province of Ontario, other landowners within the Study
Area, and local community groups.
The various backgrounds, experiences and perspectives of the Working Group
members have resulted in an excellent Terms of Reference for this challenging study.
Staff wishes to thank the Working Group members for their time, effort and
thought-provoking comments on the approach to and contents of the draft Terms of
Reference.
Report Number CAO 10-02
Terms of Reference - Growth Management Study
November 26, 2002
Page 2
As set out in Report Number CAO 05-02, the draft Terms of Reference include a
Community Outreach Program to ensure that public involvement and participation will
be an integral part of the Study.
The draft Terms of Reference specify a three-phase study process. The phases
include: Background; Overall Structure Plan; and Neighbourhood Plans. The
Background Phase requires three components to be completed: an environmental
systems assessment; an agricultural community report and collection of other
supporting information.
The draft Terms of Reference also identify 10 principles that express Pickering's
priorities in land use and development decision-making for the Study Area. The
Consulting Team is to follow these principles in undertaking the study.
Finally, the draft Terms of Reference list evaluation criteria for the submissions received
in response to the City's Request for Proposals. Among the criteria are the following:
the Consulting Team's proposed environmental systems assessment methodology;
their understanding of Pickering's principles for growth management and the City's
unique history, context and issues; the quality of their community outreach program;
their creative approach to the study; and their detailed timetable given Council's
eight-month time frame for completion.
Financial Implications: A commitment to fund the Growth Management Study, up to
the cost estimated in Report Number CAO 05-02, has been received from
Mr. Ira T. Kagan, of Kagan Zucker Feldbloom Shastri, Barristers and Solicitors, on
behalf of landowners in the Study Area.
BACKGROUND:
'1.0 Working Group
On May 21, 2002, Council received Report Number CAO 05-02 (Revised), which
in part authorized the establishment of a ~Working Group to assist with the
preparation of draft Terms of Reference for the City's Growth Management
Study. Subsequently, Council's July 29, 2002 Resolution #102/02 appointed the
members to sit on the Working Group. The Working Group comprised
representatives of Council, City staff, the Region of Durham, the Province of
Ontario, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, landowners within the
Study Area, and interested community groups.
Report Number CAO 10-02
Terms of Reference - Growth Management Study
November 26, 2002
Page 3
2.0
2.1
2.2
The Working Group met three times (on October 3rd, October 16th, and
November 13th, 2002), to discuss and assist City staff. Although the draft was
prepared with input from the Working Group, not every detail of the language
used was agreed to by all members. Most members of the Group support the
approach and content of the draft Terms of Reference.
Much of the detailed information obtained through the Working Group process
will assist in evaluating the submitted proposals. City staff appreciates the
comments and assistance provided by the Working Group members during the
preparation of the draft Terms of Reference.
Main Parts of the Draft Terms of Referenc~
Purpose
As outlined by the Terms of Reference, the purpose of the Growth Management
Study is five-fold:
· to identify the environmental system, including ecological and cultural
attributes;
· to identify the appropriate location and configuration of Pickering's
urban/rural boundary;
· to prepare a land use structure for the entire Study Area, and prepare a
development concept for the urban lands;
to develop implementation strategies including phasing, a master
environmental servicing plan, financial tools and strategies, and other
economic, social and land use management strategies; and
to identify neighbourhoods for the urban areas and prepare neighbourhood
plans, policies, detailed environmental master servicing plans, and
development guidelines for neighbourhoods in the first phase.
Pickering's Principles
Ten principles expressing the City's priorities for land use and development
decision-making are set out in the draft Terms of Reference. They are:
· maintain environmental integrity;
· respect cultural heritage;
· foster a healthy countryside;
· provide jobs first;
· use of infrastructure economically;
· create a mixed-use community integrated with the existing built-up area
· support a range of transportation choices;
· require quality urban design;
· create a community that can evolve and adapt over time; and
· stage development to be consistent with the principles.
Report Number CAO 10-02
Terms of Reference - Growth Management Study
November 26, 2002
Page 5
2.5
Three Phase Study
The Study is to be undertaken in three phases: Background, Overall Structure
Plan, and Neighbourhood Plans. In addition, the Consulting Team is required to
meet the requirements of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment process for local and regional roads. Work by the
Consulting Team will provide further input to the Durham Transportation Master
Plan study.
In the Background phase, three components relating to the collection of data
and information on topics or issues in support of the Structure Plan are required.
Although the Terms of Reference does not specify a precise work program for
obtaining and verifying environmental information and filling environmental gaps,
the Consulting Team is expected to provide the City with a detailed
'environmental methodology' as part of its proposal submission. A map that
illustrates the result of an assessment of the lands capability to withstand urban
development is to be produced.
In the Overall Structure Plan phase, a number of matters are required to be
described including: the boundary between urban/non-urban lands; non-developable
areas; primary urban and rural land use designations; the transportation system;
a master environmental servicing plan; a development concept and phasing
strategy for the urban lands; neighbourhood boundaries; general strategies; an
overall servicing and infrastructure phasing strategy; an implementation and
financing strategy; and a "rationale report" synthesizing the basis for any
changes recommended to existing policy or Council positions.
The master environmental servicinq plan requirements were prepared by the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and are included as Appendix A to
the draft Terms of Reference. Appendix A is still beinq refined, and minor
adjustments may be made subsequent to the deadline f~r this Report to the
Committee of the Whole.
In the Neighbourhood Plans phase, detailed neighbourhood plans for the first
phase of development are required. Each Neighbourhood Plan will include: the
neighbourhood boundary; the neighbourhood population and employment
targets; the general locations of community facilities; the locations and design of
stormwater ponds; the tertiary road pattern; any neighbourhood-specific
implementation and financing strategies; a detailed Environmental Master
Servicing Plan; and the Development Guidelines (which address detailed urban
design matters).
Report Number CAO 10-02
Terms of Reference - Growth Management Study
November 26, 2002
Page 6
2.6 Community Outreach Program
Community consultation will be an integral part of the Growth Management
Study. As part of their proposal, the Consulting Team is required to design and
undertake a Community Outreach Program that elicits input from the Pickering
community, including its multi-cultural population, other groups who are less
inclined to participate in the traditional planning process, and appropriate
First Nations representatives. The Consulting Team is required to prepare a
Community Consultation Report that documents comments and responses to the
views and opinions expressed.
2.7 Study Steering Committee
A Study Steering Committee is to be appointed by Council at a later date. The
Steering Committee will provide strategic direction to the Consulting Team,
including identifying additional issues for which options may be necessary to
generate discussion, identifying when additional public input may be required,
and confirming whether both 'preliminary for discussion' and 'final' reports are
required for all topics. The Consulting Team is required to meet with the
Committee at all critical stages in the Study and to record and distribute notes of
Steering Committee meetings.
2.8 Technical Review & Advisory Committee
A Technical Review & Advisory Committee will also be established as set out in
the draft Terms of Reference. This Committee will provide detailed technical
advice and guidance to the Consulting Team, as the majority of this committee
will be agencies involved in reviewing and comments on planning applications.
The Consulting Team is also required to meet with the Committee at all critical
stages and to record and distribute notes of Advisory Committee meetings.
3.0 Conclusion
It is recommended that Committee and subsequently Council endorse the
Terms of Reference provided as Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02, and
authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals for the Growth Management
Study.
(.!56
Report Number CAO 10-02
Terms of Reference - Growth Management Study
November 26, 2002
Page 7
APPENDIX:
I Draft Terms of Reference for the Growth Management Study
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Director, Pta"nning & Development
Thd"rn~a~ j." Quint{ (
Chief Administrative Officer
DiviOsi%an Head,SE. M/el~orrr~pk(:;rMatCel~rojects &R~.
GM\CLR:jf
Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Director, Planning & Development
Solicitor for the City
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council ,x ~
~sT. J. O u i~O-r~~cer
APPENDIX I TO
TO REPORT NUMBER CAO 10-02
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
(DATED NOVEMBER 26, 2002)
FOR THE
CITY OF PICKERING
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY
058
A Growth Management Study
for the
Seaton & Agricultural Assembly Lands
in the
City of Pickering
TE
N
Dra
6, 200
C
2
~G
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10~02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 1
GROVVTH MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR THF
SEATON & THE AGRICULTURAL ASSEMBLY LANDS
CITY OF PICKERING
1.0
1.1
BACKGROUND
Introduction
The City of Pickering is seeking the professional services of a qualified
Consulting Team to undertake a Growth Management Study for lands within the
City, immediately north of the existing built-up urban area. The Study will be
undertaken in cooperation with the Province of Ontario and other landowners in
the Study Area, and in consultation with the public.
The Terms of Reference for this Study were
assistance of a Working Group. The Working
from City Council, City staff, external agency
and the Toronto and Region Conservation Au'
other landowners in the Study Area, and local
Reference were approved by Pickering Counci
City staff with the
representatives
Region of Durham
rovince of. Ontario,
oups. The Terms of
2002.
Following a Request for Proposals a
will be appointed by City Council
a Consulting Team
1.2
Study Area
The Study
Seaton land
generally fol
boundary to
Rail line to tf
A map
Jncil Resolution #29/02, includes the
ly lands. The study area boundaries
the north; Sideline 16 and the Pickering- Ajax
Lawrence & Hudson (formerly the C.P. Belleville)
e Pickering - Toronto/Markham boundary to the west.
Jndary of the Study Area is provided as Attachment #1.
1.3
Public Participation & Consultation
The City of Pickering is committed to public involvement, participation, openness
and accountability in addressing land use issues. The public includes the City's
residents, business-people, landowners, relevant public agencies, and other
interested groups and individuals. In keeping with the City's fundamental
approach to doing business, inclusive and meaningful public involvement must
also be integral to the undertaking of the Growth Management Study.
Section 4.0 of the Terms of Reference identifies the requirement for the
Consulting Team to outline their specific approach to public consultation.
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 2
1.4
1,5
The Consulting Team
Pickering is seeking a Consulting Team whose creative approach to study
processes and public consultation is matched with their in-depth understanding
of the City's unique history, context, and future opportunities. The
Consulting Team's ability to quickly but appropriately fill strategic gaps in
information, synthesize and analyze relevant information, and formulate salient
recommendations on the management of growth in Pickering will reflect the
intuitive and experienced team members with required conceptual, technical and
other skills.
Consultant Selection
The evaluation criteria for selecting a consultan
limited to, the following factors:
· proposed environmental systems assessm~
· understanding of Pickering's principles for
· understanding of Pickering's history,
· understanding of study issues and
· understanding and experienc~
·
·
the quality
experience
in the
· the
· complian
· the creati
· the advic
· detailed
· cost effe
· the oral
· bid price
le, but shall not be
~ement;
tive and marketable projects
project team;
ng the study;
in the submission;
metable and work program;
the proposal;
on if selected for an interview;
2.0
2.1
THE STUDY
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the Study is fivefold:
1. to identify the Environmental system, including ecological and cultural
attributes;
2. to identify the appropriate location and configuration of Pickering's urban /
rural boundary;
3. to prepare a land use structure for the entire Study Area, and prepare a
development concept for the urban lands;
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-0~..)~
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 3
2.2
4. to develop implementation strategies including phasing, a master
environmental servicing plan, financial tools and strategies, and other
economic, social and land use management strategies; and
5. to identify neighbourhoods for the urban area, and prepare neighbourhood
plans, policies, detailed environmental master servicing plans, and
development guidelines for neighbourhoods in the first phase.
The study will be used to inform:
- Pickering (and if necessary, Durham Regional) Official Plan changes;
- Pickering and Regional Development Charge studies/by-laws;
- Pickering capital and operating financial forecasting and budgeting;
- Pickering subdivision / development / site plan condi' of approval, and
agreements;
Regional water and sewer designs, capital
Durham Mobility Study recommendation
forecasting and budgets.
budgets;
~sportation capital
Pickering's Principles for the Growth Mana~
Y
The Provincial Policy Statement (Pi
the Pickering Official Plan e
framework for thc
to have rec
detailed poli,
out the desi
City of
im,
Official Plan and
;e planning policy
~e Consulting Team is
Team is to be guided by the
icial Plans. These policies set
I, urban and rural systems in the
However,
Region of D
commence
Growth M~
~rrently undertaking a review of the PPS; the
ting a review of its Official Plan; and Pickering will
review of its Official Plan in 2003. The results of the
Study will form part of the City's Official Plan Review,
Building on e current policy framework, a review of on-going initiatives affecting
the Study Area, Pickering's role and position in the GTA, and the latest thinking
about land use planning and development, an integrated set of guiding principles
has been prepared.
The principles express the municipal priorities in land use and development
decision-making, and are listed starting on the next page.
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 4
1. Maintain Environmental Integrity
Identify, protect and enhance a healthy ecological system, including the
Area's ecological features and functions, landscapes, habitats, surface
and subsurface water, air, and other resources.
2. Respect Cultural Heritage
Respect cultural heritage, and protect and integrate important cultural
heritage resources from all time periods into the community, including
significant First Nations sites and rural settlements.
3. Foster a Healthy Countryside
Encourage a vibrant rural economy inclu~
open space uses, and conserve a reso~
generations.
recreational and
current and future
4. Provide Jobs First
· Create a
begin~
a major Employment Area,
5. Use
· Use
effect
~d and future-built infrastructure efficiently and
6. Create a
Use Community Integrated with the Existing Built-up Area
Establish a compact, mixed-use urban community that complements
'South Pickering', provides a diversity of housing together with a range of
local services and facilities, and uses innovative approaches.
Support A Range of Transportation Choices
· Reduce reliance on the automobile, and facilitate the use of other modes
of travel including walking, cycling, transit, and rail.
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study ~.) ~ ~
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 5
2¸.3
8. Require Quality Urban Design
· Require attractive, human-scale development and establish high quality
public spaces that foster interaction and a sense of place.
9. Create a Community That can Evolve and Adapt Over Time
Establish a development pattern that is flexible and can evolve over time
to meet the diverse and changing needs of the area's people and the
market place.
10. Stage Development to be Consistent with the Principles
· Stage development in a logical and appropriate manner, consistent with
the principles.
Ground Rules from Report to Council CAO 05-02 (Revised)
City Council, in initiating this Growth Management Study, established seven (7)
ground rules. Three of the original ground rules have been satisfied through the
completion of this terms of reference. The remaining ground rules are:
1. The Study is to recognize the present
(i.e., 90,000 people and 45,000 jobs).
targets for Seaton
2. The Study is to recognize the present Of ,signations west of
Duffins Creek as agricultural and agric and east of
Duffins Creek as a special study area.
The Study findings and
and information including
Toronto and
on up-to-date data
'RCA, University of
4. The stu,
commen,
;)proximately eight months of
These grour
in section 2
section 2.4,
and others.
to be
opportunitie,,
as required
rS-vincial and Official Plan policies referenced
other "inputs" to the Study described below in
current policy and positions of Pickering Council
,ss, through the Study, all lands within the Study Area are
h respect to their features, functions, constraints and
.~ Consulting Team, following review and analysis of information
fulfill these Terms of Reference, may recommend changes to the
current conditions. As set out in section 3.4, the Consulting Team shall provide a
rationale for any such changes recommended.
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 6
2.4
2.5
Council Resolutions
Several Council resolutions and positions on transportation issues affecting the
Study Area should be considered input to the Study. They are paraphrased as
follows:
· That the extension of Dixie Road northerly across West Duffins Creek not be
supported, and that the existing Dixie Road be designated as a
Type C arterial, not a Type B arterial;
· That the extension of the east-west arterial into Markham that crosses West
Duffins Creek south of Whitevale, be eliminated; and
· That the interchange locations on Highway 407 not be located at North Road
and Sideline 22.
Study Funding and Administration
The City is retaining the Consulting Team to un~
Study. The funding for the Study will be fl
Study Area. Major landowners include
owner of lands on the east side
administer the funds, and all
meets the Terms
invoices.
'owth Management
ndowners within the
Ontario (the primary
,rs. The City will
~er completed work
'k, and payment of
3.0
3.1
3.2
WORK TO
Foundation
SULTANT
The multi-di
section 2.2.
to the Study
·
g Team is to follow the principles set out in
the Consulting Team is to use the following as the inputs
the existi ,lanning policy framework;
· the emerging policies from on-going reviews of policy document;
· direct and indirect influences of initiatives of others agencies and levels of
government;
· the ground rules set out in section 2.3;
· Council resolutions / positions set out in section 2.4.
Level of Detail
The Consulting Team shall ensure the level of detail provided in the Study is
sufficient to address the goal, purposes, deliverables and intended uses of the
Study, as set out in the Terms of Reference.
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02tt¢
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 7
3.3
3.3.1
Lands within the Study Area have been subject to numerous planning initiatives
and much 'study' over the last 30 years. Consequently, a vast array of data is
available; however, the data has been gathered and docu~ ~ented for a variety of
purposes, by a number of government and ent organizations, in
different decades, in different forms, and for or all of the
Study Area.
Accordingly, it is the Consulting Team's resp(
type, level and form of information necessary
review and assess availability and ad
data gaps or flaws in existing data;
to provide required information
identify the required
e study components;
ta; identify existing
or fieldwork
The City op~
is res
Similarly,
Regional Ro
to existing
Regional re
and roads.
The Region of Durham
and sanitary sewer services.
'the provision of a network of
proposed new roads, and modifications
appropriate consultation will occur with
the provision and financing of water, sewer
The Consul' shall ensure that the level of detail meets the requirements
of 1 ) and Phase 2 (alternatives) of the Class Environmental
As for local and regional roads, and that notices about the
Growth Management Study include appropriate references to this.
Growth Management Study -- Phase One: Background
The Study shall be undertaken in three phases: Background; Structure Plan; and
Neighbourhood Plans.
Background -- Component A: Environmental Systems Assessment
The Consulting Team shall define and map the Environmental System within and
surrounding the Study Area.
The Consulting Team shall also assess the Environmental System within the
Study Area for its capacity to withstand urban development, and make
recommendations respecting land use based on the findings.
In assessing the Environmental System, the Consulting Team may identify lands
such as: areas where environmental protection is appropriate and no urban
development or other land uses shall take place; areas where urban
clevelopment or other land uses can take place but environmental functions must
be maintained or enhanced; and areas where development and other land uses
can proceed subject to normal policy requirements and approval processes.
066
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 8
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.4
Background -- Component B: Aqricultural Community Assessment
The Consulting Team shall review and report on the current agricultural
community, including physical, social and economic attributes. In addition, the
Consulting Team shall assess and recommend future viable opportunities,
priorities, and strategies for agriculture within the Study Area.
Background -- Component C: Other Backqround & Analysis
The Consulting Team shall prepare background informati( on topics or issues in
support of the Structure Plan required by section 3
Growth Management Study Phase Two: Ove~
Plan
The Consulting Team shall prepare an Overall
be for all the lands within the
illustrating and/or describing a numbe
a. This Plan is to
and non-urban)
· The
· The oper
a minimum include the
· Primary
· The tran
com
· The
for the ur
· A develo
· Neighbol
· General
ag
~d, cycling, pedestrian, transit and rail
servicing plan (including water management plan)
and phasing strategy for the urban lands;
,undaries based on the development concept;
ies for where additional policy or other guidance is required for
community services and facilities, cultural heritage, economic
development, environmental protection and enhancement, housing, the
interface between historic hamlets and new urban development, the interface
between agricultural land and new urban development, water and sanitary
sewer infrastructure, urban design, implementation and financing;
An overall servicing and infrastructure phasing strategy, addressing both
municipal and regional facilities and services.
An implementation and financing strategy, addressing both municipal and
Regional responsibilities.
A "rationale report" synthesizing the basis for any changes recommended to
existing policy or Council positions.
The Consulting Team shall prepare options for significant matters being reviewed
in the second phase. In preparing their work program, the Consulting Team shall
identify where options are to be provided. The Study Steering Committee (see
section 6.2) may provide further direction during the course of the Study on
where options may be required.
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 9
3.5
4.0
Growth Management Study Phase Three: Detailed Neighbourhood Plans,
EMSP & Development Guidelines
The Consulting Team shall prepare Neighbourhood Plans for the
neighbourhoods in the first phase of development, as agreed to by the City.
Each Neighbourhood Plan would illustrate and/or describe:
· The neighbourhood boundary;
· Neighbourhood population and employment targets;
· The general location of community facilities;
· The location, size and preliminary design of.,
· The tertiary road pattern and location of major
· Neighbourhood-specific implementation ar
where warranted;
· Be supported by a detailed Environmental M
· Be supported by Development Guidelines,
urban design strategies for the Nek
)onds;
etc.;
strategies,
:ing Plan; and
dn the detailed
The Consulting Team shall pret
in the third phas
identify
section 6.2
where optio
being reviewed
:onsulting Team shall
~dy Steering Committee (see
the course of the Study on
Community
and test opti
an integral part of undertaking the growth
:ommunity consultation provides an opportunity to explore
public, agencies and others.
The Consul' g Team shall design and undertake an effective and inclusive
Community Outreach Program. The Program is to obtain comments from and
exchange information with members of the community, on an on-going basis
during the Study.
The Consulting Team shall describe how the Community Outreach Program will
obtain the views of Pickering's multi-cultural population, other groups who are
less inclined to participate in traditional planning processes, and appropriate
First Nations representatives. The Consulting Team should recommend how
they would select (a) representative(s) to speak for interests such as
First Nations peoples.
The Study Steering Committee will make the final selection on
(a) representative(s) to speak for interests such as First Nations peoples. The
Committee may also provide guidance to the Consulting Team during the course
of the Study on when additional public input may be required.
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 10
5.0
5.1
The Consulting Team shall prepare a Community Consultation Report
documenting comments, and responses, to the views and opinions expressed.
DELIVERABLES
Deliverables
For the Reports listed below, it is anticipated
"Preliminary for Discussion" and a "Final" Report.
may give direction during the course of the St~
report does not require a preliminary and final ve~
that mo.~ will require both a
e Steering Committee
~ther any particular
1. A Environmental Systems Analysis Report, ir
2. An Agricultural Community Assessment Re
3. An Overall Structure Plan
4. A Background Report or Re
Plan Reports)
5. An
Concept,
part of th
and mapping;
Overall Structure
including Development
Boundaries (which may be
(which may be part of the Overall
7. An Urb Environmental Servicing Plan, including water
see Appendix A);
8. Impleme~ & Financing Strategy Report (which may be part of the
Overall Plan Report);
Neighbourhood Report(s) for the first phase on development, which reports
include the Neighbourhood Plans, detailed Neighbourhood EMSPs (see
Appendix A) and Development Guidelines;
10. A Rationale Report synthesizing the basis for any proposed changes to
current policy and positions;
11. Public & Agency Consultation Report.
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 11
For deliverables listed above, the Consulting Team shall forward to the City of
Pickering the following:
· For each "Preliminary" Report: 25 draft copies;
read copy of the final version; one copy of ti
compatible with Microsoft Word 2000 (all
AutoCad.dwg or .dxf format.);
· For each "Final" or other Report: 25
camera read copy of the final version;
format compatible with Microsoft
AutoCad.dwg or .dxf format).
All work become
copies; one camera
'on in digital format
to be provided in
00 final copies; one
version in digital
is to be provided in
The
of any
6.0 STUDY
team's work, and the work
6.1 General
6,2
6.3
The City ol Planning & Development Department will manage the
study. The ,ing & Development Department, through the Study Steering
Committee be responsible for supervising the study work to ensure that it is
carried out in accordance with the Terms of Reference and to the satisfaction of
the City of Pickering. The Department, through the Study Steering Committee,
shall monitor study progress, liaise with the Consultant, and exercise budgetary
control and revisions to the Terms of Reference subject to Council approval. The
Department shall also be responsible for the circulation of study products,
notices, and approval of Consultant liaison with the public and other agencies.
Study Steering Committee
A Study Steering Committee will be established to provide strategic direction to
the Consulting Team, including additional issues for which options may be
necessary to generate discussion, when additional public input may be required,
and whether preliminary and final reports are required in some instances. The
Consulting Team shall meet with the Committee at all critical stages in the Study.
The Consulting Team shall be responsible for recording, typing and distributing
notes of Steering Committee meetings.
Technical Review & Advisory Committee
A Technical Review & Advisory Committee will be established to provide advice
and guidance to the Consulting Team. The Consulting Team shall meet with the
Committee at all critical stages in the Study. The Consulting Team shall be
responsible for recording, typing and distributing notes of Advisory Committee
meetings.
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 12
7.0
DIRECTIONS TO BIDDER
The City of Pickering reserves the right to limit the number of detailed
submissions to be received for the study proposal. This invitation for detailed
submissions may or may not be the result of a short-listing process and is at the
discretion of the City of Pickering.
7.1
Submissions
Submissions for this proposal shall be physically received by the City of
Pickering, Corporate Services Department, Supply & Services Division, by an
appointed date and time. Late submission will not be ~ccepted and will be
returned unopened. All submissions shall be prep~ cost to the City.
The lowest or any bid shall not be necessarily az
is advisable to do additional work, or delete s~
these revisions should be specified.
consultant feels it
;cified, the cost for
7.2
Errors and Omissions
It shall be
include s
each phase
needed to
error or misil
the respons,
study.
~ile the Terms of Reference
study is required for
the Terms of Reference, but
;d as if specified. Any omission or
Reference shall not relieve the bidder of
erms of Reference and provide a complete
7.3 Bid and Sul ~ Format
Submission., should contain sufficient information for evaluation and selection.
Bidders may be required to provide additional information or clarification on the
contents of their submission. From the submissions, the City shall select a
short-list of Consulting Teams to present an overview of their proposal and
attend an interview with the selection panel.
Submissions must include the following information:
(i) An Executive Summary of the Proposal
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 13
07i
7.4
(ii) Consulting Team Details
The names, qualifications, relevant experience, and proposed roles and
responsibilities of the members of the Consulting Team shall be provided. A brief
history of the companies, and details of the support facilities available and
proposed for use on this project should also be provided. Past projects that are
similar in nature, and the specific involvement of key personnel proposed in this
project should be listed. References for recent projects of a similar nature should
also be provided.
The City of Pickering has to approve any changes or substitution of key
personnel for the study.
(B) Proposed Work Program and Timetable
This section shall contain a detailed work
nature and detailed scope of the Study, stages
for consultation, the Study products and delive~
be undertaken, the technical details of
milestones, project timetable, timir
Study Steering Committee, timin~
Technical Review and
outlining the
Is will be generated
;ription of the tasks to
be provided, project
Is with the
eetings with the
The City
approximate
retained.
ement Study will take
time the Consulting Team is
(iv) Pricir
This section
down by ph
addition,
public
disbursemer
ummary of the following: total project cost, broken
ponents, and major tasks, as agreed to by the City. In
~rsonnel cost, per diem, the cost to attend an additional
or additional meeting of Council (if requested), mileage,
contingencies and taxes shall be identified.
Payment will only be made when all the requirements of each major task are
fulfilled to the satisfaction to the City of Pickering. Accordingly, all invoicing must
indicate precisely tasks for which work has been completed, and remaining
percentage of task to be done.
Enquiries
Any enquiries regarding these Terms of Reference should be directed either to
Ms. Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy, (905-420-4660, ext. 2038) or
Ms. Vera Felgemacher, Manager, Supply & Services (905-420-4616) at the
City of Pickering.
0?2
Appendix I to Report Number CAO 10-02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002 Page 14
7.5 Changes
Verbal clarification should not be interpreted to change the intent of the Terms of
Reference. Any revisions to these Terms of Reference shall be issued as an
addendum, or at a meeting of all bidders.
8.0
CONSULTANT SELECTION
Criteria for the selection of the Consultant will be based
section 1.5 of the Terms of Reference.
the criteria set out in
APPENDIX A
Appendix A contains the requirements for a mE
urban area & secondary plan area, as
environmental master servicing plato
subdivision level in the
servicing plan for an
nts for a detailed
& draft plan of
APPENDIX B
Appendix B
available to the Consulting Team.
G mg\growthmanagement~d rafl~4termsofref.doc
Nov. 26/02
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix A
Page A - 1
073
MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICING PLAN REQUIREMENTS
For: (A) Urban Areas & Secondary Plan Approval
(B) Neighbourhood & Draft Plan Approval
(A)
Draft Terms of Reference for MESP's for Urban Area & Secondary Plan
Approval
The Consulting Team should pre-consult with the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) prior to commencing work.
Phase 1 - Existing Conditions Report (additional detail is to be added by the TRCA
about this Phase 1 report)
· must complete an existing conditions assessment of the Study Area;
· should establish development limits criteria (i.e., top of bank, floodlines, limit of
features, buffers);
· should set the constraints of the Study Area (i.e., no s, areas of important
features - wetlands, woodlots, recharge/discharge aquifer
vulnerability etc.);
· the constraints of the area must be put onto an
· must speak to how the areas of important feat~ ing to be protected
(i.e., drainage area to wetlands kept the same etc.
This Phase 1 report must be reviewed and
before Phase 2 can be initiated.
gn off from TRCA
Phase 2 - Conce
Once Phase 1 has
area has been established:
Stormwater
· must evaluate s
(i.e., pond Iocatk
· the alternative
ahead with the
come up with a preferred stormwater strategy
ons should be discussed with TRCA before going
ption;
Stormwater Pond C
·
·
~rla:
water quality - Level 1
flood flow:
o dependent on subcatchment (Whitevale, Urfe, Ganatsekiagon Creeks have
2-100 year post to pre-control, East and West Duffins Creek no quantity control
required from Aquafor 2002 report);
o must update the post-development model from the hydrology update completed
by Aquafor in 2002 to include proposed development area (i.e., the future Official
Plan scenario from the 2002 update did not include urban areas to Highway 7 or
the Agriculture Assembly lands as urban);
Page A- 2
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix A
O
complete to determine if it is still valid;
o must complete a regional storm analysis to determine
required;
frequent flow:
o must be completed on a subwatershed basis;
o identify subwatershed and limits of continuous
have to be completed in support of draft plan a
must look at water quantity criteria set out in the 2002 report after new analysis is
if regional control is
studies that
Hydrogeology
· water balance:
o must demonstrate that the
(i.e., infiltration map)is maintainl
o the post-develo
Clarifica m~
agriculture
o must compa~
to determine
· source protectio~
o must protect
exist by TRCA
ance 2002 report by
areas of this study (i.e., the
d to be undeveloped);
,ith the results of the new analysis
outlined in the YPD project;
Future Study
· should set out
of draft plan -
erosion analysis
'equirements are for future studies (i.e., MESP's in support
lain mapping using TRCA standards, continuous simulation
;ing TRCA standards).
(B)
Draft Terms of Reference for MESP's for Neighbourhood Level & Draft Plan
Approval
The Consulting Team should pre-consult with the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) prior to commencing work.
Stormwater Pond Criteria
° water quality - Level 1, refine permanent pool volume based on specific draft plan
details (i.e., imperviousness based on lot layouts etc.)
· flood flow - refine hydrology model to specific draft plan details and refine volumes
and release rates for pond design
· frequent flow complete a continuous simulation erosion analysis on a
subwatershed basis using the following criteria:
o Phase 1: Characterization: (to be undertaken by a qualified fluvial
geomorphologist)
1.
Characterize the existing channel form to define representative reaches and
classify the stability of the active channel (i.e., determine the most sensitive
reaches);
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix A
Page A - 3
Establish the erosion thresholds for the entire study area based on field
measurements (i.e., determine critical discharge, velocity and depth of
flow for the most sensitive reaches based on both bed and bank
assessment - the most critical values should be used);
O
Phase 2: Erosion Analysis Modellinq
1. Establish a continuous simulation model using Qualhymo version 2.2.
The
modelling will include converting the existing watershl
Qualhymo to assess the instream erosion
should have a minimum of 6 years of hourly d~
of 6 years should include a wet year, a dry ye.
Run the existing conditions scenario, which
Run the future scenario (which would inclt
with and without SWM controls (i.e.,
determine the necessary storage
existing erosion potential;
Perform a sensiti
thresholds
facilities
stormwatt
facility wil
hydrology model to
~e continuous model
;rably this data set
rage year);
argets;.
developments)
to be modelled)to
to maintain the
ation in the erosion
he stormwater management
;s). If the design of the
)e sensitive, then the size of the
for this sensitivity.
· the field work oL
(a study for the
Ganatsekiagon
· this study shou
study area of ti
sufficient and
will be completed by Parish Geomorphic in 2003
Duffins (south of Taunton Road), Whitevale,
to determine if the development area is within the
Jrt by Parish Geomorphic and whether the information is
;r work is required;
stormwater facility:
o size, type (i.e., wetland or wet pond), exact location should be determined for
each facility to set the block size;
o need a plan of each facility which outlines pond grading, side slopes, inlet and
outlet inverts, preliminary road grades, 3:1 length to width ratio as well as a
cross-section through each facility to ensure that the block size is sufficient;
Hydrogeology (to be finalized by TRCA's hydrogeologist)
· water balance:
o must verify the soil type (i.e., by literature review and site visits);
o must complete at least 3 percolation (i.e., Guelph permeameter etc.) tests for
each soil type to determine the infiltration capacity of the soil on the site and how
it compares to the value from the infiltration map and the Clarifica report;
o update post-development water balance scenario on actual draft plan details;
o alternative measures for SWM measure to demonstrate how this recharge is
being met (i.e., conceptual designs and preliminary numbers are required to set
any necessary block sizes etc.);
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix A
Page A - 4
source protection:
o must demonstrate how protection of aquifer vulnerability will be incorporated into
the draft plan;
Floodplain Mapping
· must complete digital floodplain mapping to TRCA stl
· new base mapping will be required for areas that
(i.e., Whitevale, Urfe, Ganatsekiagon Creeks) to TR(
· any new floodplain mapping must tie into existing m~
~ot have floodlines
Implementation Strategy
· must outline the participating and non-pa~
· must establish a sediment control p
lands are going to
fences, mud mats,
· if the stormwat~
facilities must
volume based or
~at shows how the
cut-off swales, silt
phase, then temporary
25 m3/ha and a permanent pool
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix B
Page B- i~'~
SELECTED RESOURCES AVAILABLE
Air Photography - digital (taken in 2000)
Durham Regional Official Plan
Eyles, N., Boyce, J. and Gerber R. Hydrogeological Study of the
Development Corporation Lands and Duffins Creek Watershed.
North Pickering Development Corporation. 1997.
North Pickering
Prepared'for the
HBT AGRA Ltd. Seaton Lands as a Natural Ecosystem. Report to the Seaton Interim
Planning Team. 1994.
Jones M, and Guy, M. Seaton Lands Stream Assessment: Aquatic Habitat and Fisheries.
Prepared for the North Pickering Development. 1997. [CD ROM available from TRCA]
Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
Planning. Toronto: 1991.
Seaton: A Strategy for Enviror ~entally Responsible
Ontario Form Collaborative (John van Nostrand Associ
Milus Bollenberghe Topps Watchorn). A Plan for Seaton.
Toronto: 1995.
Architects;
+ Design Exercise.
Pickering, City of. Pickering Rural Study, Final
Pickering, City of. Recreation, Parks
Strategic Plan Report,
Plan Update:
Pickering, City of.
Technical Report, Dr8
/ices Master Plan Update:
Pickering, City of. Pi(
September, 2000.
Pickering, City of.
September 2000.
to the Pickering Official Plan. Edition 3,
Rouge Park Alliance.
)rth Management Plan, April 2002.
Rouge Park Alliance. uge Park Management Plan.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Duffins Creek State of the Watershed Report.
Toronto: June 2002.
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. A Management Plan for the Duffins Creek and
Carruthers Creek Watersheds. The Report of the Duffins Creek & Carruthers Creek Joint
Task Force Report. Toronto: [(draft - June 2002].
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix B
Page B - 2
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Boyce, J., and Eyles, N. Architectural Element
Analysis Applied to Glacial Deposits: Internal Geometry of a Late Pleistocene Till Sheet,
Ontario Canada. Geological Society of America. Bulletin, v. 112, pp. 98-118.
A Biological Survey of North Pickering Project Site & Toronto II Airport Site, by
F.A. Walden & Martin, March 1974.
A Community for the 1990's and Beyond, Package by Ministry of Housing, 1990.
A Hydrologic Model for Environmental Impact Assessment
Petticoat & Duffins Watersheds, Shelly I. Solomon Assoc.,
le, Little Rouge,
A Plan for Seaton, Summary, Ontario Form Collaborative.
Analysis of Financial Impact of North Pickering on the
Undertaken by the Staff of Regional Municipal
September 1977.
~rham - A Joint Study
Pickering Project,
Architectural Evaluation of e North )nto Area Airports
Projects Sites by Prc M. Yost Associates Limited,
April 1974, Second E¢
Cedarwood Develol on Municipal Services by
R.V. Anderson Associ
Commissioner's Re
,mmittee, Report No. 81-174, July 14, 1981.
Community Po
Final Report, Avrum
Study for the Proposed Community of Seaton,
Toronto, April, 1991.
North Pickering P~ Background Paper No. 5 - Urban Systems Analysis:
A Literature Review, 1974.
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 6 Urban Systems Analysis:
Aggregate Analysis of Regional and Lakeshore Corridor Patterns, December 1974.
North Pickering Project Background Paper No. 7 - Urban Systems Analysis:
Synthesis and Implications for North Pickering, December 1974.
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 9 - Industrial Location Patterns,
December 1974.
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 10 - Location & Site Requirements of
Secondary Industry, January 1975.
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 11 - Input/Output Study for Industrial
Linkage Requirements, January 1975.
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 12 - The Identification of Most Probable
Industries, January 1975.
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix B
Page B - 3
Discussion Paper No. 1: Initial Assumptions & Issues North Pickering Community
Development Team, Ministry of Treasury, Economics & Intergovernmental Affairs,
Plantown Consultants, September 1973.
Finch Avenue Arterial Road Feasibility Study - Technical Report prepared by McCormick,
Rankin Consulting Engineers for the North Pickering Development Corporation, March, 1977.
Hydrogeological Study of the North Pickering Development Corporation Lands and the
Duffins Creek Watershed, Final Report, August 1997.
Interim Report - Transportation
Plantown Consultants, June 1974.
Planning for 'ickering Report,
Lowry Model Analysis of North Pickering
Ministry of Housing, December 1974.
round Paper 3),
Ministry of Housing, Ontario Land Cor
Primary Sanitary Drainage System for
Marshall Macklin Monaghan
;ering Study for a
Volume 1,
North Pickering
Urbanization on the
Resources Impacts of
March 1975.
North Pickering
Initial Assumptions
- Public Discussion Paper No. h
Limited, September 1973.
North Pickering De
Study - Arterial
Totten Sims Hubicki
- Route Feasibility & Functional Planning
)an Stage One Development North Pickering Project,
:ebruary 1978.
North Pickering A Background Paper - Commuting Analyses by B.C. Hutchison,
P. Eng, April 1974 Re ised March 1975.
North Pickering Project - A Background Paper - Identification of Manufacturing Growth
Industries, undated, Received January 1975.
North Pickering Project - A Background Report - Planning for Urban Goods Movement,
February 1975.
North Pickering Project - A New Community, Ministry of Housing Package, undated.
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 1 -Technical Information Relating to
Social Programs and Facilities in North Pickering, March 1975.
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 2 - Community Design New Towns
Reviewed, Plantown Consultants, June 1974.
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 4 - The "Market" Profiles - Some First
Impressions, December 1974.
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix B
Page B - 4
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 13 - Study of the Potential Future
Distribution of Service Industries in the Toronto Region, by Peat, Marwick and Partners and
IBI Group, April 1975.
North Pickering Project Background Paper No. 14 - Urban Employment for
North Pickering, April 1975.
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 15 - Income and Occupation Profiles for
North Pickering, April 1975.
North Pickering Project - Background Paper No. 16 -A Live/Work Community, July 1975,
Ministry of Housing.
North Pickering Project- Community Design Backgroun
Density and Community Form - a Preliminary Study
Plantown Consultants Limited, June 1974.
People, Dwellings,
ps, by
North Pickering Project - Community Design
Discussion Papers on Housing by Plantown Consu
- A Compendium of
1974.
North Pickering Project - Community Desi!
Shopping and Community Form by Plar
;liminary Review of
974.
North Pickering Proj
Guidelines by
per 8 - Open Space Planning
North Pickering
the North Pickering
~nt Opportunities & Constraints within
Housing.
North Pickering
Analysis by Plantowr
ntal Planning - An Approach to Environmental
ited, October 1974.
North Pickering P~ Interim Report 1 - Towards a Basis for the Plan by
Plantown Consultants October 1974.
North Pickering Project - Interim Report 2 - Evaluation of Phase B Modified Concept
Plans by Plantown Consultants Limited, February 1975.
North Pickering Project - Interim Report on Social Development - Volume One: Summary
of Background Studies by Plantown Consultants Limited, June 1974.
North Pickering Project - Interim Report on Social Development - Volume Two: Inventory
of Information by Plantown Consultants Limited, June 1974.
North Pickering Project - Retail Market Study prepared for Ontario Land Corporation,
Ministry of Housing by Larry Smith & Associates Ltd., February 1979.
North Pickering Project - Summary of Recommended Plan, August 1975.
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix B
Page B - 5
North Pickering Project - Transit Studies (A Background Report), by De Leuw Cather,
Canada Ltd., Consulting Engineers and Planners, April 1975.
North Pickering Seaton Advisory Committee, (blue binder) September 1993 to March 1994.
North Pickering Seaton Advisory Committee, March 1994 to July 1994.
North Pickering Seaton Advisory Committee, July 1994 to March 1995.
North Pickering Seaton Advisory Committee, March 1995 to ~)95.
Ontario Land Corp.- Pickering Open Space Study Vol. I, !Parsons Ltd., 1985.
Ontario Land Corp. - Pickering Open Space Study Vol. II Parsons Ltd., 1985.
Planning the Seaton Community, Policy Recomm( in Planning
Practice, Dr. John Hitchcock, December 14, 1990
Route Feasibility & Functioning Planni~ loads - Vicinity of
Brock West Sanitary Lan( 1978.
S.D.C. Development Stolp, October 1989.
Seaton Advisory Co~ lack binder) 1993 - 1995.
Seaton Advisory Rel ~3 - 1995.
Seaton Community -mancial Impact Analysis for the Town of Pickering
by C.N. Watson And Economists, April 1989.
Seaton Community unicipal Financial Impact Analysis for the Town of Pickering,
C.N. Watson and Ass ~tes Ltd. Economists, October, 1988.
Seaton Community Plan, Municipal Financial Impact Analysis for the Town of Pickering,
C.N. Watson and Associates Ltd. Economists, February, 1989.
Seaton Community Transportation Project, External Road Assessment, Marshall Macklin
Monaghan, December 1988.
Seaton Design Competition, Technical Review of Final Submissions, November 1994.
Seaton Financial Impact Study - Background Report on the Sanitary Sewage and Water
Requirements for the Seaton Development, by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates,
February 1990.
Seaton Financial Impact Study, by Totten Sims Hubicki & Clayton Research Associates Ltd.,
December 1990.
Seaton Handbook, Seaton Team Dunker.
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix B
Page B - 6
Seaton in The Town of Pickering Supporting Documentation for Official Plan
Amendment, Regional Municipality of Durham by Ontario Land Corporation, undated.
Seaton in The Town of Pickering - Summary Supporting Documentation for Official Plan
Amendment, Regional Municipality of Durham by Ontario Land Corporation, undated.
Seaton Lands as a Natural Ecosystem, HBT AGRA Limited, April, 1994.
Seaton Lands as a Natural Ecosystem, HBT Agra Limited, February, 1994.
Seaton Lands as a Natural Ecosystem, (A Proposal) HBT AGRA Limited, June 23, 1993.
The Seaton Lands as a Natural Ecosystem Study (A Proposal) subl ~itted to the Ministry of
Housing, June 1993.
Seaton Planning & Design Exercise, Phase Three Seaton Advisory
Committee, July 15, 1994.
Seaton The Form of its History, A Socio-Economic Hist
North Pickering Planning Area, Ministry of Housing.
;aton Lands within the
Seaton Working Sessions on Living wi1 and Culture
Economics/Finance Summary Report, ming Report.
Seaton, Phase Thr Interim Planning Team,
November 3, 1994.
Study to Assess the
by Giffels Associates
unity on the Town of Pickering
Study to Assess
Education and n
Giffels ssociates Limit 1979.
Seaton Community on the Durham Board of
Roman Catholic Separate School Board by
The North Pickeri ,gy Report # 4, by Victor Konrad, William Ross,
Irene Bowman, June
The North Pickering Project - A First Financial Evaluation of the Recommended Plan for
North Pickering, September 1975.
The North Pickering Project- Environmental Consultants - Environmental Management
Constraints & Opportunities within North Pickering Project Site, W.M.C. Wilson, N.P.P.
The North Pickering Project - Services, Utilities, & Communications Interim Report,
October 1974, Plantown Consultants.
Seaton Impact Study - Greater Toronto area Assessment DRAFT by Totten Sims Hubicki
Associates (1981) Limited for the Town of Pickering, July, 1990.
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix B
Page B - 7
North Pickering (Seaton) Lands City of Pickering:
Sernas & Associates; June 2002.
Development Analysis; by
North Pickering Preliminary Structural Plan - Figure 1; by Malone Given Parsons Ltd.; not
dated; received September 26, 2002.
Books About Local History - A List of Books Available in the Pickering Libraries pertaining to
Local History.
Heritage Pickering - Hwy. 407 Corridor Study, by Barn Owl Designs.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment, Summary Report, Volume I, by
Hough Stansbury Woodland Naylor Dance Limited-Prime Consultants, July 1994.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment, Technical Appendix, by Hough Stansbury
Woodland Naylor Dance Limited-Prime Consultants, July 1994 Volume I1.
Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment, Confidential Appendix, by
Hough Stansbury Woodland Naylor Dance Limited-Prime Consultants, July 1994 Volume B.
The 1997 Stage 1-3, Archaeological Assessment of the Lamoreaux and Duffin Heights
Neighbourhoods, Town of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario,
D.R. Poulton & Associates (grey binder).
The Archaeological Facility Master Plan Study of the Northeast
Mayer, Pihl, Poulton and Associates and Submitted to The
~dy Area, prepared by
Ih, February 1989.
The Hamlet of Whitevale Heritage Conservation Distl
prepared by The Town of Pickering, August 1989.
round Report,
The Hamlet of Whitevale Heritage Conservation Dis'
by The Town of Pickering, June 1990.
istrict Plan, prepared
The Pickering Story, 1961 reprinted 1995
Town of Pickering
)er 23, 1999.
Whitevale Heritage
8, 1995).
A Conceptual Plan
Pickering,
the Federal & Provincial Public Lands in
1996.
Duffin Rouge Agricl
Irategy, April 1995.
Greater Toronto
~ltural Economic Impact Study, November 19, 1999.
Historical Researc Document, Seaton Surplus Agricultural Land, Duffin Rouge
Agricultural Preserve Heritage Pickering, Received August 28, 1997.
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix B
Page B - 8
State of the Resources for the Duffin-Rouge Agricultural Preserve by L.W. Schut and
E. A. Wilson, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, March 1994.
Environmental Inventories of Five Airports Sites Southern Ontario Airport Study,
Gartner Lee, Professional Services in Environmental Management.
Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports, Seventh Edition, March 1989 (includes May 1996
amendment).
A Biological Survey of the North Pickering Project Site and Toronto II Airport Site, by
F.A. Walden, 1974.
Environmentally Significant Areas Study, 1996 Update by the Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority.
Environmentally Significant Areas Study, by the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, 1982.
GTA Population and Employment Projections Final
January 2000.
lic Projections Inc.,
Population, Housing and Employment in the GTA
August 1998.
:k, by Greg Lampert,
Projection Methodology Guideline, A
Employment and Relate(
July 19, 1995.
Housing Need,
qtario, date stamped
The Outlook for
The Office for the
Lybrand Consulting
GTA- Technical Appendices,
emson Consulting Ltd., The Coopers &
The Outlook for Pop
Area, August 1993, H
in The GTA, The Office for the Greater Toronto
The Coopers & Lybrand Consulting Group.
Forests of Pickerim
May 1996, Ministry of
Woodlands in the Town of Pickering, Draft Report,
Resources.
Ground-Water Resources of the Duffins Creek-Rouge River Drainage Basins, by the
Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, 1977.
North Ajax/Pickering - Cumulative Impact Study - Report on Phase 2 & 3: Examination of
Existing Environmental Conditions & Evaluation of Cumulative Impacts, Bird & Hale Ltd,
Jagger Hims Ltd, June 12, 1992.
Rouge-Duffins Draft Natural Heritage System, by Geomatics International Inc., March 1997.
Rouge Park Management Plan, May 1994.
City of Pickering Growth Management Study
Draft Terms of Reference - November 26, 2002
Appendix B
Page B - 9
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study, Phase 2 Report, December 10, 1999.
Rouge Park Vegetation Management Study, Volume I:
Geomatics International Inc., May 1997.
Rouge Park Vegetation Management Study, Volume I1:
Geomatics International Inc., May 1997
Rouge Valley Park Planning Project, Phase One Report,
Options, November 5, 1991.
Rouge Valley Park Planning Project, Phase Two
February 18, 1992.
Rouge Valley Park, Report No. 3, Preliminary Man;
The Toronto and Region Conservation Aut
information for both Duffins Creek and
The complete Plannin¢
It is anticipated that
prepared under its
:nd
Management
Guidelines, by
Pilot Study Site Plans, by
und, principles, and
cept Alternatives,
Housing will
g Team.
1992.
watershed
release documents
· !l ~ ~ ATTACHMENT #1 TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
CLAREMDNT
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That the Council of the City of Pickering hereby advises the Council of the Regional
Municipality of Durham that it supports the draft Regional Smoking By-law, attached as
Appendix "D" to Report #2002-MOH-40 of the Commissioner & Medical Officer of
Health.
REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Report Number: CL 40-02
Date: November 22, 2002
From:
Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM
City Clerk
Subject: Proposed Regional Smoking By-law
Recommendation:
That the Council of the City of Pickering hereby advises the Council of the Regional
Municipality of Durham that it supports the draft Regional Smoking By-law, attached as
Appendix "D" to Report #2002-MOH-40 of the Commissioner & Medical Officer of
Health.
Executive Summary: The Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham has
referred back to the area municipalities the draft Smoking By-law for further input.
Financial Implications: Not applicable
Background:
Please find attached to this Report a letter from the Regional Clerk indicating that the
Regional Council considered the draft Regional Smoking By-law at its meeting of
November 13, 2002 and referred the By-law back to the area municipalities for further
input.
Essentially, the draft Regional Smoking By-law will prohibit smoking in most public
places and workplaces on June 1, 2004. Bingo halls, casinos and racetracks may
establish a designated smoking rooms and smoking may be permitted at private clubs.
The Regional Health Department carried out extensive public consultation in the
preparation of the draft By-law through public meetings in each of the area
municipalities, through mailings to key stakeholders such as affected businesses and
industries and through comprehensive information provided on the Region's website
that was linked to some of the area municipality's websites.
Report CL 40-02
Subject: Proposed Regional Smoking By-law
Date:
November 22, 2002
Page 2
The City of Pickering has been a major proponent of supporting a Regional Smoking
By-law, as can be witnessed from the following two resolutions:
Resolution #83/01, Item #11, Passed on June 25, .2001:
1. That Clerk's Report CL 25-01 regarding the regulation of smoking in
public places and workplaces be received; and
That pursuant to Section 213(14) of the Municipal Act, the Council of the
Regional Municipality of Durham be requested to undertake the
enactment of a by-law to regulate smoking in public places and
workplaces subject to the approval of the area municipalities.
Resolution 039/02, Item #2, Passed on February 18, 2002:
That the letter dated January 23, 2002 from the Clerk of the Regional
Municipality of Durham regarding a resolution passed by the Council of
the Region regarding the regulation of smoking in public places and
workplaces be received.
That the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham be advised that
the Council of the City of Pickering approves of the Regional CounCil
passing a Region-wide by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco in public
places and workplaces.
Attachments:
1. Letter from the Regional Clerk dated November 15, 2002
Prepared By:
ruce Taylor
City Clerk
Attachment
Report CL 40-02
Subject: Proposed Regional Smoking By-law
Date:
November 22, 2002
Page 3
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
rTho~rr~ J. Quin~/Chief{~dministr'~~
RECEIVED-
~/o -d):).._ CITY OF PICK.ERING
NOV 1 8 201 29jL'J
C:LERK!8 DIVISION
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Clerk's
Department
PO BOX 623
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E.
WHITBYON L1N 6A3
CANADA
(905) 668-7711
1-800-372-1102
Fax: (905) 668-9963
E-mail:
clerks@region.durham.on.ca
www. region.durham.on.ca
Pat M. Madill, A.M.C.T., CMM I
Regional Clerk
November 15, 200'2
THIS LETTER HAS BEEN
FORWARDED TO'ALL
AREA MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. B, Taylor
Clerk
City of Pickering
I The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7
Re:
REGIONAL SMOKING BY-LAW (#2002-MOH-40)
(Our File: P10-05)
Mr. Taylor, the Health and Social ServiCes Committeeof Regional
Council'Considered the above matter and at a meeting held on
November 13, 2002, Couflcil referred back the following
recommendations to the'Area Municipalities for further input with a
report back to Regional Council by February 2003:
"a)
THAT the draft Regional smoking by-law, attached as
Appendix D to Report #2002-MOH-40 of the Commissioner
& Medical Officer of Health, be approved;
b)
THAT Ontario's Ministers of Health and Long Term Care and
Labour, Durham Region's MPs, MPPs and Ioca'l area
municipal Councils be so advised; and
c)
THAT the local area municipal Councils and their staff be
thanked for their cooperation and assistance in considering and
responding to the Regional Smoking BY-law report dated
September 2002."
SERVICE EXCELLENCE
for our COMMUNITY"
100% Post Consumer
^-rrAcHHENT #--J-~-
-2-
Enclosed, for your information-, is a copy of Report #2002-MOH-40
of the Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health which
provides the comments from the Area Municipalities on this issue.
Please place this matter before your Council at your earliest
opportunity. If your Council wishes to.prOvide input, a response on
or before Friday, January 31, .2003 would be appreciated'.
Regional Clerk
PMM/sc
Encl.
C:
Dr. R.J. Kyle, Commissioner. & Medical Officer of
Health
Report.To:' Chair L. O'Connor and Members
Health & Social Services Committee
Report No.: 2002-MOH-40
Date: October 31, 2002
093
SUBJECT: Regional Smoking By-law
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Health & Social Services Committee recommends to the Regional
Council that:
a) The appended draft Regional smoking by-law is approved;
b) Ontario's Ministers of Health and Long-Term Care and Labour and Durham
Region's MPs, MPPs, and municipal Councils are so advised; and
c)
The municipal Councils and their staffs are thanked for their cooperation and
assistance in considering and responding to the Regional Smoking By-law
Report.
REPORT:
1. On September 5, 2002, the Health & Social Services Committee:
· Forwarded the Regional Smoking By-law Report (Appendix A) to the
Durham Region's municipal Councils for information; and
· Requested Ajax, Brock, Clarington, Oshawa, Scugog, Uxbridge
Councils to advise the Commissioner & Medical Officer ao~d Whitby
Health,
preferably on or October 18, 2002, if they grant the Regional Council [final]
approval to pass a Region-wide by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco
in public places and workplaces.
By October '!8, all municipal Clerks had forwarded their Councils' resolutions
regarding this matter to Regional staff (Appendix B).
Health and Legal staffs have reviewed the correspondence noted above.
Andrew Allison, Senior Solicitor, advises that a majority of municipal Councils
have granted the Regional Council permission to pass a Regional smoking by-
law. Health staff has prepared the appended response to the issues raised by
the municipal Councils (Appendix C).
87
Report No.: 2002-MOH-40
In addition, Legal staff has amended the draft by-law (Appendix D) appended
to the Regional Smoking By-law Report where required and in accordance
with municipal feedback in order to clarify and improve the original intent of
the draft by-law.
m
It is recommended that the Regional Council approves the appended draft
Regional smoking by-law; and thanks the municipal Councils and their staffs
for considering and responding to the Regional Smoking By-law Report.
Respectfully submitted,
R: J[ K~e, MD, MHSc, CCFP, FRCPC
Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health
88
89
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................... .. ....................................................... 2
Health Effects of Second-Hand Smoke .................................. i .......................................... 3
The Region's Tobacco Control Mandate and Activities .................................................... 4
Smoking and Health in Durham Region ............................................................................ 5
Situation in Durham Region ...................................................................................... 5
Local By-Laws ............................................................................... : ........................... 6
Regional Smoking By-law Public Consultation ................................................................ 7
Background ................................................................................................................ 7
Public Consultation Plan ............................. ; .............................................................. 7
Results of the Public Consultation ..................................................................................... 9
Public Consultation Meetings .................................................................................... 9
Web Surveys ........................................................... 2 ................................................ 10
Regional Smoking By-law Comment Line...: .......................................................... 11
Correspondence ........................................................................................................ 12
Council for a Smoke-Free Durham Region Postcards ............................................. 13
Issues related to By-law Development ............................................................................ 15
Ontario By-Laws ...................................................................................................... 15
Economic Impact ..................................................................................................... 15
Bingo Industry ......................................................................................................... 16
Ventilation ................................................................................................................ 17
Designated Smoking Rooms .................................................................................... 19
Enforcement ............................................................................................................. 20
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 21
References ........................................................................................................................ 25
Appendices - Table of Contents ....................................................................................... 27
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
9O
Page 1
ATTACHMENT # I_j_._ TO REPORT #_~__- ~ cJ - c,'~-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Exposure to second-hand smoke is an important public health concern and smoking by-
laws are a way of protecting the public from that exposure. Boards of health are
mandated by the Province to support and encourage municipal policy development,
including the consideration of appropriate by-laws and their enforcement to reduce
smoking in public places and workplaces.
Exposure to second-hand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death behind
smoking and alcohol use. Second-hand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals, of which
more than 40 are known to cause cancer. In adults, exposure to second-hand smoke
causes heart disease, lung cancer and nasal sinus cancer. Children are particularly
vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke. In children, exposure to second-hand
smoke causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), low birth-weight, bronchitis,
pneumonia and other respiratory illnesses. Children with asthma have more attacks and
the attacks can be more severe.
In June 2001, the Council of the City of Picketing recommended that Regional Council
enact a region-wide by-law regulating smoking in public places and workplaces subject
to the approval of a majority of the area municipalities. In December, Durham Region's
Health & Social Services (H&SS) Committee recommended that Regional Council ask
the area municipalities for their approval to conduct public consultation regarding a
Regional smoking by-law and to authorize H&SS Committee to lead this consultation. In
January 2002, Regional Council passed these recommendations and subsequently, a
majority of the area municipalities gave' their approval. In April 2002, the H&SS
Committee approved of the plan for the consultation process. The public consultation was
conducted in June 2002.
The public consultation consisted of two main components: communications and public
heatings. Input was sought from all Durham Region residents including key stakeholders.
The general public was notified about the public consultation, through community
newspaper advertisements, radio advertisements, media releases, and Regional/Municipal
websites. Key Durham Region stakeholders were notified specifically through a mail out.
Eight public meetings were held during the month of June 2002, one meeting in each of
the eight area municipalities. The public was invited to speak at these meetings. In
addition, residents were encouraged to complete a website survey, call a dedicated voice
mail box and fax, write or email comments to the Health Department. There were 75
delegations at the public meetings, 994 website surveys completed, 299 telephone
messages and 80 pieces of correspondence. Public opinion was also obtained through an
on-going Health Department survey. A total of 579 residents were surveyed from
October 2001 to March 2002 regarding their support for a by-law regulating smoking in
public places. The analysis of the data from the public consultation and survey
indicates the vast majority of residents support a Regional by-law regulating
smoking in public places and workplaces.
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 2
ATTACHMENT #..
HEALTH EFFECTS OF SECOND-HAND SMOKE
Second-hand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals, of which more than 40 are known to
cause cancer. The health effects of involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke have
been thoroughly documented in scientific research over the last decade. An international
scientific panel, consisting of 29 experts from 12 countries, convened by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, an agency of the World Health Organization, reviewed
all significant published evidence related to tobacco and cancer. It unanimously
concluded that second-hand smoke causes cancer.~
In adults, exposure to second-hand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and nasal
sinus cancer. New evidence suggests links with breast cancer and stroke. It has been
established that children are at particular risk to the dangers of second-hand smoke. In
children, exposure to second-hand smoke causes Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS),
low birth-weight, bronchitis, pneumonia, other lower respiratory tract infections and
middle ear disease. Children exposed to second-hand smoke are at greater risk of
developing asthma; those with asthma have more attacks and the attacks can be more
severe.2 (Appendix 1)
There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Exposure to second-hand
smoke causes between 1100 and 7800 deaths per year in Canada, at least one-third of
them in Ontario. Second-hand smoke exposure is the third leading preventable cause of
death in Canada.2
Many people are exposed to second-hand smoke at work. Employees of the hospitality
industry are most in need of protection. Bar workers, during an 8-hour shift, inhale an
mount of second-hand smoke equal to actively smoking nearly a pack of cigarettes. The
risk of developing lung cancer is 50% higher for food service workers than for the
general population.3 The establishment of smoke-free bars and taverns has been
associated with rapid improvement of respiratory health in their employeesfi
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 3
92
THE REGION'S TOBACCO CONTROL MANDATE AND ACTIVITIES
0 9 9
The Regional Corporation, as Durham's Board of Health, is required by the Ontario
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) under the Health Protection and
Promotion Act to address tobacco issues at a variety of levels. Boards of health are
mandated to support and encourage municipal policy development, including the
consideration of appropriate by-laws and their enfomement to reduce smoking in public
places and workplaces. The goal of the MOHLTC is to increase the proportion of smoke-
free public places and workplaces to 100%. 5 (Appendix 2)
The Regional Corporation's Health Department addresses tobacco issues through a
comprehensive approach, focusing on prevention, protection and cessation. Programs
such as peer-led tobacco-use prevention 'initiatives, the Tobacco Youth Vortal Project,
Not to Kids, and the support and resources provided to educators and community groups
help prevent youth from starting to smoke. The Health Department provides cessation
support groups for women, and resources and telephone support for people who want to
quit smoking. Resource support is also provided to physicians, pharmacies, dentists, and
community groups/agencies. Smoke-free home and smoke-free car campaigns, as well as
web-site information on second-hand smoke and the distribution of an up-to-date Durham
Region Smoke-Free Dining Guide, encourage Durham Region residents to protect
themselves and their children from exposure to second-hand smoke.
Other responsibilities of the 'Health Department related to tobacco issues include the
enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act, which prohibits the sale or supply of tobacco to
youth under 19, and prohibits smoking in specified public places. Regarding legislation
around tobacco issues, letters are also written to advocate for strengthened federal and
provincial legislation. For example, a letter was sent to the Prime Minister, urging his
government to remain committed to maintaining the integrity of the Tobacco Act by
resisting pressure from the tobacco industry to provide exemption for tobacco
sponsorship (December 15, 1997). Letters have been sent in support of Senator Colin
Keuny's Bill S-20, The Tobacco Youth Protection Act (May 25, 2000) and followed up
with a mail-merge writing campaign in May 2001 which yielded 1300 letters of support
when the bill was reintroduced as Bill S-15. A letter was sent in support of federal
Health Minister Allan Rock's initiative to change health warning labels on cigarette
packages (April 18, 2000) and his proposed limits on tobacco companies' use of
descriptors like "light" and "mild" on cigarette packaging (May 25, 2001). An e-mail
communication was forwarded to Ms. Helene Goulet, Director General of the Tobacco
Control Programme at Health Canada, also regarding the importance of regulating the use
of "light" and "mild" and similar terms or descriptors that lead the consumer to believe
that the product is less harmful (Jan 4, 2002). The Health Department is currently
involved in advocacy at the provincial level in requesting that Health Minister Tony
Clement dedicate tobacco control funding to facilitate, at a local level, more effective
public education, by-law support and activities targeted at youth to prevent smoking.
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 4
93
SMOKING AND HEALTH IN DURHAM REGION
The Situation in Durham Region
The current smoking rate in Durham Region adults aged 18 years and older is 28% (+/-
3%). Current smoking rates consist of daily and occasional smokers. However, only
20% of Durham Region adults smoke on a daily basis.6 (Appendix 3)
Durham Region residents are recognizing the health risks associated with exposure to
second-hand smoke, and taking greater responsibility in protecting themselves and their
families. In 2001, 80% of people in Durham lived in smoke-free homes, up from 66%
when the Health Department's Smoke-Free Home campaign started in 1997. Smoking is
not allowed in the vehicles of 69% of Durham Region drivers. 6
The Health Department conducts an ongoing survey, known as the Rapid Risk Factor
Surveillance System (RRFSS). Each month, Durham Region residents are randomly
surveyed regarding health issues. The results of this survey indicated that the majority of
Durham Region residents support making public places, such as restaurants, 100%
smoke-freeT(Appendix 4):
· 75% of Durham Region residents support a by-law making restaurants smoke-free
· 57% of Durham Region residents support a by-law making bars smoke-free
· 55% of Durham Region residents suppOrt a by-law making bingo halls smoke-flee
· 66% of Durham Region residents support a by-law making bowling alleys smoke-free
Additionally, the majority of Durham Region residents would frequent restaurants, bars,
bowling alleys and similar public places more often or just as often if these places were
100% smoke-free environments7:
· 90% of Durham Region residents indicated they would go out to restaurants more
often or it would make no difference if they were smoke-free
68% of Durham Region residents indicated they would go out to bars more often or it
would make no difference if they were smoke-free
· 54% of Durham Region residents indicated they would go out to bingo halls more
often or it would make no difference if they were smoke-free
· 73% of Durham Region residents indicated they would go out to bowling alleys more
often or it would make no difference if they were smoke-free
In contrast, Durham Region residents indicated they would go out less often to smoke-
free environmentsT:
· 9% of Durham Region residents indicated that they would go out less often to
restaurants if they were smoke-free
· 15% of Durham Region residents indicated that they would go out less often to bars if
they were smoke-free
· 6% of Durham Region residents indicated that they would go out less often to bingo
halls if they were smoke-free
· 5% of Durham Region residents indicated that they would go out less often to
bowling alleys if they were smoke-free
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 5
94
Local By-laws
Presently, each municipality in Durham Region has a different by'law regulating
smoking in public places (Appendix 5). For example, in Scugog and Brock Townships
smoking in restaurants is not regulated, while in the Municipality of Clarington
restaurants must be 75% no smoking. There are no municipal by-laws that cover
workplaces in Durham Region.
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 6
REGIONAL SMOKING BY-LAW PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Background
In June 2001, the Council of the City of Pickering recommended that Regional Council
enact a region-wide by-law regulating smoking in public places and workplaces subject
to the approval of a majority of the area municipalities. In December, Durham Region's
Health & Social Services (H&SS) Committee recommended that Regional Council ask
the area municipalities for their approval to conduct public consultation for a RegiOnal
smoking by-law and to authorize H&SS Committee to lead this consultation. In January
2002, Regional Council passed the recommendations and subsequently, a majority of the
area municipalities gave their approval.
The Public Consultation Plan
At the April 4, 2002 meeting of the H&SS Committee, Health staff recommended that the
public consultation consist of two main components, communications and public
hearings. The Health staff outlined a plan for conducting the consultation and the plan
was approved by the Committee (Appendix 6).
The purpose of the public consultation was to obtain a broad range of opinions across
Durham Region. Input was sought from all Durham Region residents including key
stakeholders such as businesses/industries, health agencies, professionals, municipalities,
non-governmental organizations, school boards and workplaces (Appendix 7),
A 'Notice of Public Consultation' was developed that outlined the consultation process
and the various ways that people could give input (Appendix 8). The Notice became the
main vehicle for getting the message out to the public. Other resources were developed,
including Background Information and Frequently Asked Questions documents.
Packages (Appendix 9) containing these resources as well as a pamphlet about second-
hand smoke, the Tobacco Snapshot developed by Durham Region Health Department and
a summary of local municipal by-laws were distributed to'Regional CouncillOrs and to
municipal offices. These resources were made available to the public on the Region's
website, by contacting the Health Department, by attending the public meetings and at
municipal offices.
The general public was notified about the public consultation through community
newspaper advertisements, radio advertisements, media releases and Regional/municipal
websites. Quarter page ads, featuring the Notice, were placed in community newspapers
throughout the entire Region in mid-May 2002, and again at the end of May/beginning of
June 2002 (Appendix 10). An additional ad was placed in the lakeshore community
newspapers on Junel6, 2002. Radio ads (Appendix 11) ran for the week of May 25, 2002
on our two local radio stations, KX 96 and Energy FM/AM 1350. Both radio stations ran
40 rotations of a 30-second ad. Media releases were sent out on May 24, May 30, June 28
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 7
96
and July 22 (Appendix 12). Media were very interested in the issue, resulting in articles,
an editorial and Health staffparticipation in radio interviews. The timeliness of World No
Tobacco Day on May 31 st may have helped to focus the media interest.
The Region's website housed comprehensive information on the public consultation that
went live on May 8, 2002. Some of the area municipalities displayed links to the Region's
website, highlighting the information.
Key Durham Region stakeholders (e.g. affected businesses/industries, in conjunction with
the Region's Economic Development and Tourism Department) were specifically
notified. Approximately 4000 coveting letters and Notices were mailed out to key
stakeholders across the Region (Appendix 13).
Public opinion was obtained through eight public meetings that were held throughout the
month of June, one meeting in each of the eight area municipalities. Additional public
opinion was obtained through the use of ongoing health surveillance information, a
Regional website survey, and a dedicated voice mailbox. The public was encouraged to
call, e-mail, complete a website survey, fax, write or speak at a public meeting.
Each public meeting followed the same format. Committee Chair & Regional Councillor
Larry O'Connor chaired the meetings. Dr. Kyle, Commissioner & Medical Officer of
Health, gave a presentation, outlining the issues (Appendix 14). Scheduled speakers
delivered their presentations, followed by speakers from the floor. All speakers were
given five minutes for their presentations. Everyone who came to a meeting wishing to
speak had the opportunity to speak.
People who called in their comments to the dedicated voicemail box received a taped
message that asked them to state their name, city/town and postal code (Appendix 15).
The website survey included a comment section and to ensure survey results reflected the
opinions of Durham Region residents, we asked for name, city/township and postal code
(Appendix 16).
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 8
O7
RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Public Consultation Meetings
Approximately 160 people attended the public meetings and there were 75 delegations.
Speakers' remarks were audio taped and staff from the Regional Clerk's office recorded
the proceedings (Appendix 17). The comments received at the public consultation
meetings were organized into themes based on their content.
The following themes were identified:
r~eme
Frequency of Comments
Health Effects 20
Supportive of a Smoke-Free By-law 19
Implementation Timeline 18
Detrimental Effects on Community caused by lost Bingo Revenue 16
Enforcement Issues 12
Freedom of Choice 12
Negative Economic Effects 11
In Favour of Designated Smoking Rooms 10
Suggested By-law Elements 10
Occupational Health Concerns 9
Positive Economic Effects of By-law 8
Smoking is Provincial or Federal Responsibility 7
Non-Smokers' Rights 6
Restaurants and Bars should be Treated Equally 6
Must Have a Level Playing Field across the Region 6
Protect the Children 6
Smokers' Rights 6
Second-Hand Smoke Drifts 5
Harmonize By-law with Neighbouring regions 5
Supports Smoke-Free Restaurants 5
Problems with Designated Smoking Rooms 5
Opposed to a Smoke-Free By-law 3
Issues related to By-law Development Process 3
Educate Children on the Dangers of Tobacco 2
Doubts Health Hazards 2
An explanation of the themes and a representative sample of comments from residentS for
each theme can be found in Appendix 18.
During the public consultation meeting held in Oshawa, many Bingo Operators expressed
their views on how a Regional smoking by-law would be detrimental to the community,
due to a potential loss of Bingo revenue. A collection of bingo hall surveys from Bruce
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 9
C,~ -'-I0 -02.-
Baird, Chairman of Oshawa Bingo Country Charities Group Association, was presented
to Health and Social Services chair Larry O'Connor. The survey (Appendix 19) asked for
the respondents name, address, phone number, municipality, postal code and posed the
question: "How supportive are you for prohibiting smoking in bingo hall?"
When counted by health staffthere were 194 completed surveys (34 additional surveys
were spoiled as they were duplicates or not completed). The results were as follows:
181 responses were not at all supportive of prohibiting smoking in Bingo halls
13 responses were not very supportive of prohibiting smoking in Bingo halls
Web Surveys
The Durham Region Health Department received 994 web surveys (Appendix 20). A
quantitative statistical analysis of these surveys was completed (Appendix 21). Many
respondents included additional comments. The comments were organized into themes
based on the content.
The following themes were identified:
Theme
Frequency of Comments
Supportive of Smoke-Free By-law 182
Health Effects 139
Non-Smokers' Rights 106
Suggested By-law Elements 65
Will Not Patronize Smoking Establishments 64
Prefers Other Smoke-Free Regions 62
Second-Hand Smoke Drifts 50
Protect the Children 49
Implementation of Timeline 44
Positive Economic Effects 44
Harmonizing By-law with Neighbouring Regions 38
Occupational Heath Concerns 36
In Favour of Designated Smoking Rooms 33
Health Costs of Smoking 28
Freedom of Choice 28
Non-smoking Areas around Doorways/Entrances 27
Negative Economic Effects 26
Business Owner's Choice 25
In Favour of Non-Smoking and Smoking Areas 21
The Odour of Smoke 20
Smokers' Rights 18
Enforcement Issues 18
Protection from Second-Hand Smoke is a Governmental Responsibility 16
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 10
99
ATTACHME?~!'~ .: t
Opposed to Smoke-Free By-law
Must have a Level Playing Field across the Region
Would Increase Patronize of Smoke-Free Public Places
Believes Ventilation Systems Work
Outlaw/Restrict Tobacco Products
By-law Supports Cessation
Role Modeling
Supports Smoke-Free Restaurants
Will Not Patronize Smoke-Free Public Places
People will Adapt
Concerned with other Environmental Issues
Government Interference
Doesn't Like Waiting
Believes Ventilation Systems Do Not Work
16
15
15
15
14
14
13
12
9
9
9
8
6
3
An explanation of the themes and a representative sample of comments from residents for
each theme can be found in Appendix 22.
Regional Smoking By-law Telephone Comment Line
The Durham Region Health Department received 299 calls. Ail comments received were
recorded and transcribed (Appendix 23). The comments' were organized into themes
based on the content.
The following themes were identified:
Theme
Frequency of Comments
Supportive of Smoke-Free By-law
Health Effects
Freedom of Choice
Will Not Patronize Smoking Establishments
Second-Hand Smoke Drifts
Opposed to Smoke-Free By-law
By-law Elements
Protect the Children
Non-Smokers' Rights
Supports Smoke-Free Restaurants
Harmonizing By-law with Neighbouring Regions
Positive Economic Effects
The Odour of Smoke
Prefers Other Smoke-Free Regions
Against Smoking
Occupational Health Concerns
Would Increase Patronage of Smoke-Free Public Places
184
46
25
23
22
21
20
19
16
15
13
13
13
12
11
10
8
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 11
100
ATTACHMD, Fr ~-~ I
Smokers' Rights
Business Owner's Choice
Implementation of Timeline
Negative Economic Effects
Concerned about Health Department Involvement
Health Care Costs of Smoking
Government Interference
Role Modeling
In Favour of Designated Smoking Rooms
Concerned With Other Environmental Issues
Must Have a Level Playing Field across the Region
Non-Smoking Areas around Doorways/Entrances
8
6
6
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
An explanation of the themes and a representative sample of comments from residents for
each theme can be found in Appendix 24.
Correspondence
We received 80 pieces of correspondence, in the form of letters, faxes, e-mails and
written submissions at public meetings (Appendix 25). The comments from the
correspondence were organized into themes based on the content.
The following themes were identified:
Theme
Frequency of Comment
Supportive of a Smoke-Free By-law
Positive Economic Effects of a By-law
Health Effects
Will Not Patronize Smoking Establishments
Non-Smokers' Rights
Protect the Children
Occupational Health Concerns
Implementation Timeline
Prefers Other Smoke-Free Regions
Second-Hand Smoke Drifts
Suggested By-law Elements
Freedom of Choice
Negative Economic Effects
Harmonizing By-law with Neighbouring Regions
Smoke-Free as a Societal Norm
Opposed to a Smoke-Free By-law
In Favour of Designated Smoking Rooms
Would Increase Patronage of SmokeXFree Public Places
Level Playing Field
47
15
14
11
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Regional Smoking By-Law RepOrt
101
Pagel2
1 !) ~, ATTACHMENT #_..L
Non-Smoking Areas Around Doorways/Entrances 3
Detrimental Effects on Community Caused by Lost Bingo Revenue 3
Role Modeling 3
Benefits of By-law 2
The Odour of Smoke 2
Voluntarily Went Smoke-Free 2
Believes that Ventilation Systems Do Not Work 2
Responsibility for Durham Region Residents 2
Government Interference 2
An explanation of the themes and a representative sample of comments from residents for
each theme can be found in Appendix 26.
Council for a Smoke-Free Durham Region Postcard
The Council for a Smoke-Free Durham Region developed and distributed postcards
which stated, "I Support Durham Region Smoke-Free By-law" (Appendix 27). These
postcards were pre-addressed to Durham Region Health Department. A member of the
Council for a Smoke-Free Durham Region presented 887 completed postcards to Chair
O'Connor at the Picketing public consultation meeting on June 27. Subsequently, more
cards were sent to the Health Department. In total, 1096 postcards were received by July
31, 2002. The postcards received were separated into the following municipalities:
Municipality Amount
Ajax 61
Brock 8
Clarington 212
Oshawa 422
Pickering 32
Scugog 33
Uxbridge 14
Whitby 280
Sub-Total 1062
Out-of-Region 34
Total 1096
Durham Region residents could also provide additional comments on these postcards.
These additional comments were organized intO themes based on the content.
The following themes were identified:
Theme
Frequency of Comment
Health Effects
Implementation Timelines
Non-Smokers' Rights
16
15
9
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
102
Page 13
Protect the Children 7
By-law Elements 7
Delegalize Smoking 6
Would Increase Patronage of Smoke-Free Public Places 5'
Will Not Patronize Smoking Establishments 5
Supports Smoke-Free Public Places 5
The Odour of Smoke 4
Supports Smoke-Free Restaurants 3
Level Playing Field 3
Health Care Costs of Smoking 3
Freedom of Choice 2
An explanation of the themes and a representative sample of comments from reSidents
for each theme can be found in Appendix 28.
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 14
103
ATTAC:HMEN'i',¢-_! ...... C c_ - ~ c - c~'~
liO
ISSUES RELATED TO BY-LAW DEVELOPMENT
Ontario By-laws
To address' the health hazards of second-hand smoke, legislation restricting smoking in
public places and workplaces is increasing throughout Ontario.. There are 46
municipalities that have either implemented or are currently developing 100% smoke-free
by-lawss (Appendix 29). In the GTA area, the City of Toronto and the Region of York
and the municipalities of the Region of Peel have opted to phase-in smoking restrictions.
They have passed by-laws to restrict smoking in public places, such as restaurants, food
courts, bowling alleys and workplaces effective June 1,2001 and to regulate smoking in
bars, bingo halls and billiard halls effective June 1, 2004. In August 2001, the City of
Ottawa implemented a comprehensive by-law regulating smoking in all public places and
workplaces, setting a gold standard for the protection of residents from the serious effects
of second-hand smoke.
A poll conducted by Deeima Research Inc. in Ottawa, in June 2002, indicates that since
the introduction of the by-law close to 7 in 10 City residents now strongly (53%) or
generally (15%) support the by-law restricting smoking in all public ~places and
workplaces (including restaurants, bars, bingo halls, bowling alleys and taxis).
Economic Impact
Much of the debate around smoke-free public places has focused on the economic impact
on the hospitality industry. The industry has argued that smokers will choose to dine in
neighbouring communities or will not dine out as often. It is feared that this will mean
reduced revenue for business.
However, study after independent study, based on sales tax receipts confirms that the
hospitality industry does not lose business when bars and restaurants go smoke-free.~° A
study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found smoke-free restaurant
by-laws in three American states and six major cities had no adverse effect on tourist
business and may have actually increased it.TM
In Canada, Dr. Ronald Colman of Genuine Progress Index Atlantic completed the fa'st
comprehensive assessment of the economic impact of smoking restrictions,m He
reviewed all studies on the economic impact of smoking restrictions on restaurant and bar
sales that have been done in North America. In his report, he concluded that without
exception, every objective study using official sales tax data demonstrated that smoke-
free legislation has no adverse impact on restaurant, bar, hotel and tourism receipts. Two
studies found an initial decline in receipts in the first one to two months following
enactment, but no evidence of any overall or aggregate decline in the long-term. Several
studies found that restaurant, bar, hotel and tourism receipts increase following smoke-
free legislation indicating that it may be good for business as non-smokers frequent
eating and drinking establishments more often and smokers adjust to the new rules.
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 15
11i
In a report prepared for The Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia, 16
studies were reviewed, examining the economic impact of smoking regulations on
hospitality facilities in a number of jurisdictions in North America.]3 The conclusion of
all published studies that used tax data in the analysis is that smoking restrictions do not
impact negatively on hospitality sales and/or on employment or on tourism activity in the
long mn.
· The City of Ottawa engaged KPMG Chartered Accountants to monitor the economic
impact of the smoking by-law that was enacted on August 1, 2001. KPMG issued their
first report in December 2001 .]4 The preliminary findings indicated that since the by-law
was enacted, there was an increase in employment in the food services industry and a
corresponding decrease in employment insurance claims.
A survey conducted in Ottawa, in June 2002, by Decima Research Inc., concluded "the
city's smoking by-law has been accepted by the critical mass of area residents during its
crucial early period of implementation. While specific establishments may have
experienced a decline in business, across the City overall, the loss of customers due to
this restriction is largely offset by others who are now more likely to visit bars and
restaurants because they are smoke-free?
Bingo Industry
There are currently five bingo operations functioning in Durham Region. Many charities
and community groups are dependent on bingo revenues to support their work in the
community. The roles governing the operation of charity bingos are set by the Alcohol
and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO). Municipalities may license the operation
of charity bingos and are permitted by the AGCO to collect a license fee of up to 3% of
the total prize value.
The bingo industry in Ontario has been experiencing decreased revenues for a number of
years. One factor has been the increased number of other gambling opportunities. A
Mississauga report prepared in 2000, concluded that the "Mississauga bingo community
has seen a steady reduction in its revenue since the introduction of slot machines at the
Mohawk and Woodbine Raceways. Information received to date indicates that both
attendance and revenue have been dramatically impacted by initiatives undertaken by the
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of
Ontario." Bingo halls in Mississauga reported decreases in revenue ranging from 5.1% -
40% attributed to the introduction of slot machines. The report quotes the General
Manager of Meadowvale Bingo,." It would be safe to say that since the opening of these
casino/slots, hall revenue has decreased by at least 35% and the figure continues to
grOW."15
A report submitted to Ottawa's Corporate Services and Economic Development
Committee on February 28, 2002 identified that Ottawa was experiencing the same trends
as in Mississauga. The report states that "Significant new gaming opportunities are now
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
105
Page 16
competing with bingo since the opening and expansion of the Casino du Lac-Leamy, the
growth of the local Video Lottery Terminal industry, and the opening of Rideau-Carlton
Slots in 2000. As a result of this new competition, and other changes in market
conditions, attendance and profits for the charities have been declining for many years
and continue to do so. For example, attendance and profits fell 15% and 13% respectively
between 2000 and 200176
York Regional Council adopted a report~7 that analyzed the impact of their new no-
smoking by-law on bingo revenues, and concluded that while the new by-law might haVe
had some initial impact, it was competition from a variety of new gaming activities that
had reduced profits for charities.
In conclusion, various municipalities in Ontario have examined the issue of declining
bingo revenues and have found' that although no smoking by-laws may have had some
impact, a major contributing factor is competition from new gaming activities.
Ventilation
One of the first attempts to assess whether ventilation could be a solution to the problem
of exposure to second-hand smoke in indoor places occurred in 1981. At that time the
United States National Academy of Sciences assembled an expert panel to review a'
variety of indoor pollution and ventilation issues, including second-hand smoke in the
workplace. The report of this expert panel concluded that a ventilation system capable of
completely removing tobacco smoke from the air did not exist.2 That conclusion has set
the standard to measure the viability of ventilation systems as a solution. To be a viable
solution, a ventilation system would have to be able to remove all tobacco smoke from
the air.
Since that time ventilation technology has become more sophisticated with techniques of
air cleaning and recycling. Despite these advances in ventilation the conclusion about
ventilation and second-hand smoke remains the same. There is no ventilation system
capable of removing tobacco smoke from the air?
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASH1LAE) is the organization that sets the standards for ventilation safety. In 1999
ASHRAE accepted the evidence from authorities that there is no acceptable level of
exposure to the chemicals found in second-hand smoke. ASHRAE no longer provides
ventilation standards for air with tobacco smoke in it, only for smoke-flee buildings.~8
Since there is no acceptable level of exposure to second-hand smoke, an adequate
ventilation system would have to remove all tobacco smoke from the air. Currently, there
is no ventilation system that is capable of removing all tobacco smoke from the air.
Therefore, ventilation may dilute tobacco smoke, but it will not ehminate the health risk.
Ventilation is often presented as an option when municipalities consider a smoke-free by-
law. When the City of Toronto was considering its smoke-free by-law,' the Ontario
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
106
Page 17
,~,TTACHMEi¥"~ <-: ,1 ~ C_ L - W 0 .- 0'2_
Restaurant Association (ORA) and the Greater Toronto Hotel Association (GTHA) held a
news conference at the Black Dog Pub to release results of its' demonstration project, and
called on City of Toronto Councillors to adopt ventilation as a compliance option?
(Appendix 30). The ventilation demonstration project involved set-up of a directional
air-flow ventilation technology. The City of Toronto, ORA and GTHA agreed to ask
Health Canada to test the technology. Health Canada however, turned down this request.
Health Canada Assistant Deputy Minister lan Potter stated:
"When combusted, cigarettes produce both particulate and
gaseous components. The premise behind ventilation is the
replacement, at a constant level, of current air with "fresh"
air, which both removes and dilutes smoke...The problem
with ventilation as an exposure reduction strategy is that
exposure, even if the system is operating at maximum
efficiency, is never zero.' In other words, in the best-case
scenario, there is an explicit acceptance of some level of
exposure to non-smokers. In the worst-case scenario, where
the ventilation system is never maintained and becomes
inoperative, exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke is
maxim/zed... Since no ventilation system will protect
everybody, and might even delude non-smokers into a false
sense of protection, it is concluded that such systems are not
as good as a total ban... It is recommended that the City of
Toronto be informed that Health Canada will not test the
proposed system." ~9
Ventilation 'provides no solution to the problem of exposure to second-hand smoke.
Scientists around the world agree - the only safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke
is no exposure at all.
A disturbing trend is noteworthy in this report. Recent release of Canadian tobacco
documents have traced the activities of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council
(CTMC) as it worked with the hospitality industry during the 1990% to develop a strategy
to promote ventilation as a solution to smoking bans. The tobacco industry's main front
group in promoting ventilation is the Hotel Association of Canada, which is funded by
the CTMC to mn "Courtesy of Choice"; a program designed to promote ventilation
solutions. Tobacco company representatives have publicly revealed that the CTMC has
been funding "Courtesy of Choice" by approximately $800 000 a year since 1995. The
Hotel Association of Canada funded Roger Jenkin's study of the ventilation at the Black
Dog Pub. Roger Jenkins is a well-known consultant to the American tobacco industry,
who has testified on its behalf as an expert witness in court proceedings. In one case, a
judge barred Mr. Jenkins' testimony on the grounds that U.S. tobacco giant R.J.
Re)mold's assistance with his research made it suspect. It is clear that despite technical
evidence that ventilation cannot work, the tobacco industry is continuing to use front
groups to promote ventilation as a solution to exposure to second-hand smoke.29
1.!3
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page 18
107
Designated Smoking Rooms
Designated smoking rooms (DSRs) are areas within a public place, which are enclosed
from floor to ceiling and have a separate ventilation system. These rooms appear at first
glance to be a possible solution. However, DSRs create the following problems:
· Occupational Health: When employees enter these rooms, they are exposed to all of
the harmful chemicals found in second-hand smoke. As a matter of occupational
health and safety, a DSR does not protect these employees,
· Unlevel Playing Field: DSRs create a financial burden on business' owners, which
prevents the establishment of a level playing field..DSRs are expensive to construct
and maintain. Many establishments cannot afford to build a DSR. The lack of
effectiveness of ventilation systems has previously been discussed in this report. In
addition, ventilation systems have significant maintenance requirements and are
costly. These systems would have to be on 24 hours a day to maintain the DSR
negative pressure gradient in relation to the smoke-free area. As well, the ventilation
in the DSR would have to be monitored regularly. Small business would be
challenged to install and maintain two separate ventilation systems.
· Protecting Children and Infants: Infants and children may be exposed to second-hand
smoke in DSRs when they accompany their parents. It has been established that
children are at particular risk to the dangers of second-hand smoke. 2
· DSRs are costly to the municipality: York Region No-Smoking By-law allows for
DSRs. They have developed Ventilation Submission Requirements for constructing a
Designated Smoking Room. Submissions must contain the following data as a
minimum requirement for Designated Smoking Room Health Services Approval:
1. Three sets of drawings to scale, with dimensions indicating total occupiable area and
Designated Smoking Room Area; including name, address and telephone number of
Designer and qualifications of the designer.
2. Statement of area of occupiable area and Designated Smoking Room area with a
calculation showing ratio of DSR area .as a percentage of total occupiable area. Note, this
must be 25% or less and the area must not be required by any person for a thoroughfare.
3. Statement of occupancy of DSR. Approval will be based on stated occupancy. Any
greater occupancy will void all approvals.
4. Statement of separate air supply. This must be no less than 30 litres/second (63.5
CFM) per occupant.
5. Statement of interlock between air supply and exhaust to ensure continuous operation
of both systems.
6. Statement of air exhaust. This must be a minimum 110% of separate air supply.
7. Statement and drawing verifying that supply and exhaust are separated by a minimum
of 3 metres in any direction.
8. An undertaking that an independent air balancing contractor will provide
verification of air supply and exhaust values, in written form, prior to occupancy of the
Designated Smoking Room.
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
108
Pagel9
9. The applicant must verify that the Designated Smoking Room meets all other
requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including barrier free access with the
appropriate municipality prior to occupancy.
10. A statement that the DSR is completely enclosed. This means sealed walls, floor to
slab, or sealed with solid drywall ceilings. Floor to ceiling partitions with acoustic tile
will not be acceptable.
11. Verification of the installation must be obtained prior to occupancy.
12. A self-closing door?
Enforcement
Key to successful implementation of a by-law is a strong commitment to enforcement.
The Health Department, which is already responsible for the Tobacco Control Act, is
well suited to assume the responsibility of enforcing provisions of a Regional smoking
by-law. In Febmary 2002, most area municipalities informed Health & Social Services
Committee that should the Region be granted the authority to pass a region-wide by-law
that the Durham Region Health Department be responsible for the enforcement and
promotion of the by-law.
Generally in other jurisdictions enforcement is a regional responsibility, led by staff of
the Health Department with support fi.om legal services and community partners. Staff
eXPerienced with enforcement of the Tobacco Control Act enforces the by-law with some
assistance from Public Health Inspectors during critical periods of implementation of the
by-law. Experience in other jurisdictions has shown that smoking by-laws are largely
self-regulating through voluntary compliance by the public, employers, staff and
owners/operators. However, other municipalities implementing smoke-free by-laws have
required additional enforcement staff. Numbers of staff dedicated to enforcement ranges
fi.om three in Waterloo Region to six in York Region.
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page20
109
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the issues discussed in this report and analysis of the opinions voiced by
Durham Region residents during the public consultation process, the following
conclusions have been reached.
An overwhelming majority of Durham Region residents supported a Regional by-
law regulating smoking in all public places and workplaces. Of the residents who
completed our website survey, 84.2% were strongly supportive of a regional by-law
regulating smoking in public places and workplaces. There was overwhelming support
for regulating smoking in restaurants (84.3%), workplaces (85.5%) and bowling alleys
(80.4%) and significant support for regulating smoking in bars (64.9%) and bingo halls
(70.4%).
Durham Residents gave input into what they felt should be included in the by-law and
when the by-law should become effective. People were very supportive of restrictions in
workplaces and restaurants as previously noted. Other areas identified where smoking
should be restricted were patios, arenas, community centres, and sporting events. Some
people were very specific about areas they thought should be included or exempted in the
by-law. For example, a number of people expressed concerns about having to walk
through smoke in order to enter public buildings such as hospitals and malls, and they
suggested prohibiting smoking outside of buildings. There were a few suggestions that
smoking continue to be allowed in bars, but these bars should either be clearly designated
as smoking establishments or smoking should be restricted until after 9 p.m. Concerns
'were expressed that private establishments, such as Legions, could operate under their
own rules because they are not open to the public. Some people felt that business owners
should have the choice of whether or not to permit smoking in their establishments. There
were a few Durham Region residents that were satisfied with current smoking and non-
smoking areas in restaurants, bars, bingos and bowling alleys.
A majority of people who commented on fimelines were in favor of a by-law being
passed immediately or as soon as possible. Some business owners asked that sufficient
time be allowed to enable them to adapt to the change. Input received from other
municipalities recommended that an implementation date for a Durham Region by-law
coincide with the final phase of the implementation of their by-laws, June 1, 2004. In
order to facilitate the community's adjustment to a smoking by-law and to plan an
effective implementation strategy, an implementation date of June 1, 2004 is
recommended.
Some residents supportive of implementing a by-law stressed the importance of
effective and strong enforCement. Several business owners emphasized the
importance of strong enforcement of a bylaw in maintaining a level playing field for
businesses. Comments about the enforcement issue tended to be made by people who
had first hand experience with the issue through their work or business.
Many residents of Durham Region stated that ff all businesses across the region,
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page21
110
regardless of municipality or type of business, are treated equally under the by-law,
a level playing field will be created. This is supported by other municipalities who,
based on their experiences, have advised a level playing field be maintained by treating
restaurants and bars equally. As well, differentiating between restaurants and bars is
problematic because the Liquor License Act does not distinguish between restaurants and
bars for licensing purposes. Instead it provides a single class of license for all
establishments that serve alcohol and, in an attempt to reduce public harm associated with
alcohol use, establishments that serve alcohol must serve food. Based on all of this
information~it makes sense to treat restaurants and bars equally in a smoking by-law.
Bingo operators and their charity associations were the most vocal in opposing a ban on
smoking in their establishments. They expressed concern about a potential loss of bingo
revenue and its effect on the community if a smoke-free by-law was implemented in
Durham Region. They consistently recommended that bingo halls be allowed a
Designated Smoking Room (DSR). They also commented on the potential loss of
revenue to municipalities resulting from a decrease in licensing fees. These concerns
were brought forward at some of the public consultation meetings. The concern regarding
the effect of the potential loss of bingo revenue on the community was a major concern at
the meeting held in Oshawa. At that meeting Chair O' Connor was presented with 194
completed "in hall" survey responses. Of these, 181 indicated that they were "not at all
supportive of prohibiting smoking in bingo hall" and 13 indicated that they were "not
very supportive". As previously documented in this report, other municipalities have
investigated current trends in revenue losses in the bingo industry and have found that
competition from other gaming establishments is a key factor. Curi'ently there are five
bingo operations, one casino and one racetrack in Durham Region. Based on the strong
concerns expressed by bingo operators and their charity associations and the
relatively small number of establishments involved, it would appear that allowances
for DSRs could' be made for these establishments.
The issue of DSRs was brought forward by Some other Durham Region residents and
business owners. People commented on problems inherent with DSRs including the costs
of building and maintaining them, which in mm would create an unlevel playing field. In
addition, concerns were raised about employees having to work in DSRs. A small
number of residents suggested that if smoking is allowed in restaurants and bars, that
DSRs, separately enclosed and separately ventilated should be established, ltowever,
generally throughout the consultation process, there was little support for DSRs in
public places and workplaces. This lack of support and concerns for employee health
combined With the costs of DSRs to business owners and to the region related to an
approval process provides a substantial argument for smoke-free workplaces and for
limiting DSRs to a few establishments (i.e. the seven gaming establishments previously
noted).
Durham Region residents frequently cited the adverse health effects of second-hand
smoke as a concern. Many people expressed concern that their lives have been
adversely impacted by second-hand smoke because of existing health conditions such as
asthma and allergies. Strong comments were made to the effect that second-hand smoke
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page22
111
is dangerous and kills people. This indicates that there is a high level of awareness in our
community about the serious and proven health hazards of second-hand smoke.
Many residents had strong feelings about non-smokers' rights. Many expressed that
their right to good health should prevail over a smoker's right to smoke. Other
comments related to being subjected to a smoking environment included the unpleasant
odour of smoke, the smell of smoke on hair and clothes, headaches, burning eyes, and
food tasting like smoke.
People commented that the current situation of having smoking and non-smoking areas
doesn't provide protection from second-hand smoke as the smoke drifts from the smoking
sections to the non-smoking sections, exposing patrons and employees to the harmful
effects of tobacco smoke. Some people further requested that smoking not be permitted
even in outdoor areas where people gather.
While the majority of the responses indicated that non-smokers' rights should supercede
smokers' rights, there was a small minority of residents who smoked, and felt a
smoke-free by-law would infringe on their right to smoke. Related to this issue, some
people feel that there should be both smoking and non-smoking establishments, thus
offering the public a choice.
Durham Region residents singled out children and employees as being especially
vulnerable to the effects of second-hand smoke and therefore in need of protection.
These residents said they want to raise healthy children and view second-hand smoke as a
threat to their children's health. This demonstrates people's awareness of the fact that
children are particularly at risk from exposure to second-hand smoke. As well, people
stated that children had no choice of being in a smoke-filled environment.
The second group identified as vulnerable was employees. There were a variety of
concerns expressed about the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke on employees
working in smoking environments. Some people described having to quit their jobs
because of the smoking in their work environment. Others worried about their health
because of exposure to second-hand smoke in the workplace.
Comments were received that addressed both the positive and negative economic
effects of a smoking by-law. Some people commented that businesses would suffer and
close due to lost revenue if a smoke-free by-law was implemented. Other residents
expressed their belief that businesses would not suffer with a smoke-free by-law. This is
supported by evidence already cited earlier is this document. While business may dip
initially, there are no long-term negative effects.
It was noted by a number of people that areas such as Waterloo, Ottawa, Toronto, York
Region and Peterborough that have enacted smoke-free by-laws have not seen a loss in
business. It was also noted that establishments in Durham Region that have voluntarily
gone smoke-free (for example, Tim Hortons, Swiss Chalet, Red Lobster, and Williams .
Coffee Pub) are thriving.
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page23
112
Cc.- '---t o -o2.
Some people indicated that they would frequent hospitality/entertainment
establishments more often in Durham Region if they were smoke-free. In fact, many
residents currently leave the Region to dine in smoke-free establishments in neighboring
municipalities that have enacted smoke-free by-laws (e.g., York Region, Toronto,
Peterborough). A few people indicated that they would not patronize smoke-free
establishments.
Many residents expressed that Durham's smoking by-laws should harmonize with
the neighbouring municipalities. This would prevent further losses to Durham's
tourism and hospitality industry and ease the transition for business owners. Some
peOPle felt that Durham residents would adapt quickly to a smoke-free by-law as they
have in Other regions.
Many people outlined additional benefits, which the by-law would bring to our
community. These benefits include:
· A smoke-free by-law would set an example for our children and youth that smoking
is not acceptable.
· A smoke-free by-law would support smokers in their efforts to quit.
· A smoke-free by-law could help reduce the financial burden that tobacco places on
our health care system.
A smoke-free by-law would create a social norm in which smoking was seen as
unacceptable.
A smoke-free by-laW would mean less waiting time for non-smoking tables in
restaurants.
There were some comments from residents about the issue of responsibility for a smoke-
flee by-law. A few people commented that this should be the responsibility of a specific
level of government (i.e. regional, provincial, federal), while others thought it should be
the responsibility of the Health Department. Others thought that this was not at all a
government responsibility, but in fact it should be an individual choice. Some people
expressed their opinion about the sale of tobacco products, stating that because tobacco
causes cancer, the sale of tobacco should be illegal.
As requested by Ajax, Clarington, Oshawa and Whitby Councils, Regional legal staff has
drafted a Regional smoking by-law based on the results and conclusions of the public
consultation for consideration by the Regional Council if a majority of the area municipal
Councils approve of the Regional CounCil enacting such a by-law (Appendix 31).
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page24
113
REFERENCE LIST
~' International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (2002). Involuntary smoking.
Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoke: Summary of data reported and evaluation, 83.
Retrieved from http://monographs.iarc.fr/htdocs/indexes/vo183index.html.
2. Ontario Tobacco Research Unit. (2001). Protection From Second-Hand Smoke in
Ontario.
3. Seigel, M. (1993). Involuntary smoking in the restaurant workplace. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 270(4). 490-493.
4. Eisner, M.D. et al. (1998). Bartenders respiratory health after establishment of smoke-
free bars and taverns. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(22). 1909-1914.
$' Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. (1997). Mandatory Health Programs and
Services Guidelines. Toronto, ON.
6. Durham Region Health Department. (Jan 2002). Still Fuming.t Durham Region
Tobacco Smoking.
7. Durham Region Health Department. (2002). RapidRisk Factor Surveillance System.
8. Ontario Tobacco Network. (2002). Standards of Second-Hand Smoke Exposure in
Ontario Hospitality and Recreational Premises.
9. Decima Research Inc. (2002). Decima's Ottawa Market Pulse: A Decima Quarterly
Report on National Capital Region.
10. Ontario Tobacco Strategy Media Network. (2001). Restaurant Smoking Bans and
their Economic Impact.
~' Giantz, S. & Charlesworth, A. (1999). Tourism and hotel revenues before and after
passage of smoke-free restaurant ordinances. Journal of the American Medical
ASSociation, 281(20). 1911-1918.
~2. Colman, R. (2001). The Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Workplaces: An Assessment
for Nova Scotia. GPI Atlantic, Nova Scotia.
~3. Pacific Analytics Inc. (2001). The Economic Impacts of the Proposed Amendment to
the ETS Regulation.
In. Bourns, B., & Malcolmson, A. (2001). Economic Impact Analysis of the No Smoking
By-Law on the Hospitality Industry in Ottawa. Ottawa, ON.
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
114
Page25
~5. Baker, J.M., Commissioner of Corporate Services and Treasurer. (2000). Bingo
_Industry Update ('Report submitted to Chairman and Members of General Committee).
Mississauga, ON.
~6. Kirkpatrick, K. (2002). Ontario's declining charitable bingo revenues.. A four-point
action plan for Ottawa (Report submitted to Corporate Services and Economic
Development Committee). Ottawa, ON.
l*' York Region, Commissioner of Health Services. (2002). Bingo operations in York
Region (Report submitted to Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee).
18. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. (1999).
ASHRA£ Published Updated !ndoor Air Quality Standard (,4SHRAE News Release).
~9. Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco. (2002). The Hospitality Industry, The
Tobacco Industry and Ventilation in Ontario.
20. York Region Health Services. (2000). Ventilation submission requirements for
constructing a designated smoking room.
12i
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page26
115
APPENDICES TO THE REGIONAL SMOKING BY-LAW REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
Protection from Second-Hand Smoke in Ontario .................................................... 28
Mandatory Health Programs and Services Guidelines ............................................ 92
RRFSS Still Fuming Durham Region: Tobacco Smoking ................................. :.. 110
RRFSS 2002 .......................................................................................................... 113
Local Smoking By-law Report ............................................................................. ,117
Plan for Conducting the Consultation
Durham Region Stakeholders List (& attachments) .............................................. 124
A Notice of Public Consultation ............................................................................ 210
Public Consultation Package ................................................................................. 211
Newspaper Ad ....................................................................................................... 231
Radio Ad (Text) ..................................................................................................... 232
Media Releases ...................................................................................................... 233
Covering Letter ...................................................................................................... 238
Presentation by Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health .............................. 239
Recorded Message for By-law Comment Line (Text) .......................................... 245
Sample Website Survey ................................................................ .. ........................ 246
Public Consultation Meeting Minutes ................................................................... 247
Themes & Sample Comments from Public Consultation Meetings ...................... 296
Sample "In Hall Survey" ....................................................................................... 309
Website Surveys .................................................................................................... 310
Frequency Analysis - Website Surveys ................................................................. 483
Themes & Sample Comments from Web Surveys .............. . 485
Transcription of Regional Smoking By-law Comment Line ................................ 505
Themes & Sample Comments from Regional Smoking By-law Comment Line. 549
Correspondence Received .......................................................... ~ .......................... 560
Themes & Sample Comments from Correspondence .............................. : ............ 671
Sample Postcard ............................ ........................................................................ 681
Themes & Sample Comments from Postcards ...................................................... 682
Standards of Second-Hand SmOke Exposure in Ontario Hospitality and Recreational
Premises ................................................................................................................. 687
The Hospitality Industry, the Tobacco Industry & Ventilation in Ontario ........... 688
Regional Smoking By-law Draft ........................................................................... 694
Please Note: The Appendices are available for review at the Regional Municipality
of Durham, Clerk's Department, 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby, (905) 668-7711.
Regional Smoking By-Law Report
Page27
116
683 1061
October 16, 2002
TOWN OF AJA% CLERKS DEPT
( L. - u.I r~
~00i/002
APPENDIX B
123
Ontario's First ISO 900.1
Quality Community
65 Harwood Avenue $.
Aj~c, Ontm'io
L] S 2H9
(905) 683-4550
www, townofaj ax.corn
(905) 619-2529, ext. 336
derond@townofijax.¢om
P. M. Madill
Regional Clerk
Regional Municipality of Durham
605 Rossland Road E.
Whitby, Ontario
LIN 6A3
Dear Ms. Madill:
Re: Reg/onal Smoking By-law. Report
At their meeting October 15, 2002, Ajax Town Council approved the following
resolution:
"That the Council of the Town of Ajax approves a Regional
Smoking By-law, provided it is in the form of the draft By-law
appended to the Region of Durham "Regional Smoking By-law
Report".
That it be recommended that a Regional Smoking By-law include
a provision to allow bars to also establish a designated smoking
room, no greater in size than 50% of the occupiable Public space
of the premises.
.,
That the Region review existing smoking regulations in other
Ontario racetracks, casinos and gaming establishments,
particularly the Blue Heron Casino and the Woodbine and
Mohawk Race Track/Slots, and consider/ncluding sirnilaz
standards for such facilities in a Regional Smoking By-law."
Ajax Town Council emphasizes that, while it endorses the principle ora Region
Smoking By-law to create consistency across the Region, it remains very
concerned with the final regulations that may be incorporated into a Region By-
law. As a result, the Town of Ajax authority to allow the Region to pass a
Smoking By-law is conditional upon the Region By-law being identical to the
Draft By-law appended to the Regional Smoking By-law report.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the Ajax resolution are matters that Ajax Town Council
would like the Region to review in greater detail and consider as possible areas
of the Draft By-law that should perhaps be mended.
117
FAX 905 683 1061 TOWN OF AJAX CLERKS DEPT ~002/002
174
In reviewing the Draft By-law, Ajax Council also identified concerns with the
possible interpretation of certain sections.
In Particular, the inclusion ofvehicles in the definition ora workplace se~ms to
be subject to a very broad interpretation. Council wishes to ensure that this
would not include a situation where charges might be la/d against an employer if
contracted drivers and vehicles (a delivery service, for example), are deemed to
be in contravention of the By-law. The Town requests clarification with respect
to the definition of vehicle and how the Region would enforce th/s section.
The Town of Ajax is also seeking clarification with respect to the exemption for
private clubs. Does this exemption apply only when the club is occupied by
bOna-fide members only? Or, if the club is hosting a function that is mended by
non-members and perhaps includes an invitation to the general public, would the
private club exemption be removed and the function be then become subject to
the smoke-fr~ regulations imposed on other public places? Again, the Town
seeks clarification of how these scenarios would be addressed through the draft
Region By-law and the subsequent enforcement.
Thank you for your kind attention and assistance with this mat'ten
M. de Rend
Clerk
Town Council Members
Dr. Kylc, Regional Medical Officer of Health
Ail Durham :Clerk's
N. Picov
R. McArthur, Puck and Beaver
T. O'Donnell, Plaza Bowl
B. McKay, Pubco
118
OCT
20~2
08:!6 FR CLERKS DEPT
~.'7EL543234:~'7 E!RDCK TWP
THE CORPORATION OF
TO 905723342B P.83
$i? P~2 OCT 16 'BP_. iS:iO
THE'TOWNSHIP OF BROCK
IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
CAMERON ST. E., P.O. BOX I0. CANNINGTON, ONTARIO L0E 1E0 (705) 432-2355
I?S
October 16, 2002
Region of Durham Health and Social Services Committee
P.O, Box 623, 605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
LIN IA3
Attention: Ms. Carol Smitton, AM'CT
Commit.tee Secretary
Gentlemen/Ladies:
Be: The Re,qional Smokin~ By-Law Public..C_onsultatlo.
This is to ack'nowledge your letter dated September 9, 2002.
In response to your letter, the Township of Brock passed a resolution to support
Regional Council in the passage o1' a Regional smoking by-law regulating smoking in
public places and workplaces.
I trust the above provides the direction requested.
Yours truly.
THE TOWNSHIP OF BROCK
~AMCT, CMC
Clerk-Administrator
GSG:ac
119
TOTAL
176
October 1, 2002
Ms. C. Smitton
Committee Secretary
The Regional Municipal of Durham
P.O. Box 623
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontado
L1N 6A3
Dear Ms. Smitton:
Re:
Smoking By-law
Our File No.: S08.SM
At a meeting held on September 30, 2002, the Council of the Municipality of
Cladngton passed the following resolution:
"THAT Correspondence Item D-14 be received; and
THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham be advised that the Council of
the Municipality of Cladngton grants Regional Council final approval to
pass a Region-wide by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco in public
places and workplaces, as per. Regional Council's request of January 23,
2002, provided Regional Council has regard for the regulations contained
within the Smoking in the Workplace Act."
PLB*cd
Cc:
R.J. Kyle, Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health
:120
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO LIC 3A6
CLARINGToN
T (905) 623-3379'
Department of Corporate Services
File A-2291
October 17, 2002
Dr. Robert Kyle
Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health
Regional Municipality of Durham
Lang Tower, West Building
Suite 210, Whitby Mall
1615 Dundas Street East
Whitby, ON L 1N 2L 1
Re: R~eeional Smoking By-law Report_
This is further to the letter received from Carol Smitton, Committee Secretary concerning the above matter.
Oshawa City Council at a meeting held October 16, 2002 adopted the following resolution:
"1. That correspondence dated September 9, 2002 from Carol Smitton, Committee Secretary,
Region of Durham Health and Social Services Committee, requesting City Council's response
with respect to the granting of a Region-wide by-law regulating smoking of tobacco in public
places and workplaces be received for information;
2. That Oshawa City Council endorse the implementation of a Regional No-Smoking By-law;
3. Ti',at it be recommended that a Regional Smoking By-law include a provision to allow bars to
also establish a designated smoking room, no greater in size than 50% of the occupiable public
space of the premises;
That it be recommended that Section 1 (f)(iv) of the draft by-law concerning the definition of
'd '
es~gnated smoking room' be amended and redefined so as to include the common area of the
building or structure in the allotted non-smoking area;
That it be recommended that the ventilation system identified by the Pub and Bar Coalition of
Ontario be investigated."
The Corporation of the City of Oshawa
City Clerk Services
50 Centre Street South, Oshawa' Ontario L1H 3Z7
TEL: (905) 436-5639, FAX: (905) 436-5697
121
178
With respect to Part 5 of'the recommendation, once we have received the documentation i%m the Pul) mud
Bar Coalition of Ontario concerning the specific ventilation system they spoke of, the information will be
forwarded to you for your use.
If you need further assistance, please contact me at the address below or by telephone at 905-436-5636,
extension 2230.
Sandra Kranc
City Clerk
c. C. Smitton, Committee Secretary
P. Madill, Regional Clerk
P. Barrie, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington
M. de Rond, Clerk, Town of Ajax
B. Taylor, Clerk, City of Picketing
D. McKay, Clerk, Town of Whitby
G. Graham, Clerk-Administrator, Township of Brock
K. Coates, Clerk, Township of Scugog
W. Taylor, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge
122
PICKERING
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
Clerk's Division
Division (905) 420-4611
Facsimile (905) 420-9685
clerks@city, picketing, on.ca
Ms. P.M. Madill, Clerk,
The Region of Durham,
605 Rossland Rd. E.,
Box 623,
Whitby, Ontario L1/~'6A3
Cc_ - c-4 c-; --09_
Picketing Civic Complex
D ~One The Esplanade
U O Picketing, Ontario
Canada
L1V 6K7
Direct Access (905) 4204660
cityofpickering, com
129
FEB'21'02 P~l
Please be advised that the following resolution was passed b~, thb C6uncil CJ~'-~"~2~'oration of the City
of Pickering at its meeting held on February 18, 2002:
That the letter dated January 23, 2002 from the Clerk of the Regional Municipality of
Durham regarding a resolution passed by the Council of the Region regarding the
regulation of smoking in public places and workplaces be received.
That the Council of the Regional Municipality ~)f'Durham be advised that the Council of
the City of Pickering approves of the Regional Council passing a Region-wide by-law
regulating the smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces.
If you have any questions with respect to this matter,
Division at 905-420-4611.
please do not hesitate to contact the Clerks
/dk
Yours very truly,
lor, AMCT, CMM
City Clerk
YVONNE de WIT, B. Math, MBA
Chief Administrative Officer
TOWNSHIP OF SCUGOG
181 PERRY STREET Phone: 905-985-7346
BOX 780, PORT PERRY Main Office Fax: 905-985-9914
ONTARIO LgL 1 A7 Clerk's Office Fax: 905-985-193!
KIM COATES, A.M.C.T.
October 1, 2002
Ms. C. Smitton, Committee SeCretary
Health & Social Services Committee
Durham Region Clerk's Department
P.O. Box 623
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A3
Re: R~ional Smokin~Law
Dear Ms. Smitton:
Your correspondence dated September 9, 2002 requesting that Council advise of their
position regarding the passing of the above captioned By-Law was considered by the
Council of the Township of Scugog at a regular meeting held September 30, 2002.
I wish to advise that Council adopted the following resolution in this regard:
"THAT this Council re-iterate its previously stated position to the effect that this Council
is opposed to the Region of Durham enacting a Region-wide By-Law to regulate the
smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces as it is the view of this Council that
local businesses have responded by self-regulating with respect to this matter."
Should you have any questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to advise.
Yours truly,
Klm Coates, A.M.C.T.
Clerk
CC;
Dr. R. J. Kyle, Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health, Durham Region
124
ATTACHM ~ ,~
The Corporation of the
In Tl~ Rc~onal Municii~lii.y or Durham
September 25, 2002
Tovm ttalI
51 Toronto &freer South
P.O. Box 190
Uxbridse, ON LgD ITl
Telephone (905) 852-9181
facsimile (905) 852-9674
Web www. towa.uxbriclge, on .ca
Carol Smitton, AM.C.T.
Committee Secretary
Region of Durham
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A3
REGIONAL SMOKING BY-LAW
TOW/WSI-IIP FILE: GR-313
Please be advised that the Council of the Township of Uxbridge at its regular meeting held on
Monday, September 25rd, 2002 adopted the following recommendation pertaining the
implementation of a Regional Smoking By-law:
"THAT we respond to the Region of DUrham advising that we support the
implementation of a Regional Smoking By-1aw subject to clarification on Definition 1,
Sub-Section R, regarding recreational facilities." '
I am by copy of this letter requesting Dr. Kyle to prove clarification on Definition I, Sub-Section
R regarding recreational 'facilities.
Yours truly
Walter E. Taylor
Township Clerk
cc: Dr. RJ. Kyle, Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health
125
Telephone
905-668-5803
Toronto
905-686-26k.
Fax
9O5-686-7OO5
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF W'HITBT
In the Regional Municipality of Durham
MUNICIPAL BUILDING
575 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
Canada
L1N 2M8
October 17, 2002
File: A-2200
p. IVl. Hadill, Regional Clerk
Regional Municipality of Durham
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A3
Re: Proposed Reqional Smokinq By-law
At a meeting held on October 15, 2002 the Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Whitby unanimously passed a resolution granting the Regional Municipality of Durham the
approval to pass a Region-wide by-law regulating the smoking of tobacco in public places
and workplaces.
DGH/Icr
End.
c.c.' V~Dr.
Whitby Town Council supports the basic intent and purpose of the draft smoking by-law
prepared by the Region of Durham. However, the Council has concerns regarding specific
aspects of the draft by-law. These concerns are elaborated in the enclosed Council notes.
Whitby Council requests the Region of Durham have regard to these concerns prior to the
final adoption of a Region-wide smoking by-law.
Don~
Director o~,~ate Services
RJ. Kyle, Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health
Lang Tower, West Building, Suite 210
Whitby Hall, 1615 Dundas Street East
Whitby, Ont. LIN 2L1
126
.October 15, 2002
! ' ].33
WHTTBY COUNC]:L NOTES
Proposed Regional Smoking By-law
Sections 8, :[0, ::[3 and ~.5 of the draft Smoking By, law prohibit the placing of
ashtrays in public places and enclosed workplaces. Considering that the by-law
prohibits smoking in public places and enclosed workplaces, is it really necessary to
regulate the placement of ashtrays in such places~ Also, what is the definition of
an ashtray? '
Section 9 of the draft by-law provides that"subject to Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 above,
no person shall permit a person to smoke in a public place". The commonly
accepted definition of a "person" is quite encompassing. Would it not be more
appropriate to amend Section 9 to ad subject to .............. no proprietor shall
re " '
permit a person to smoke in a public place'?. This revision would reflect the wording
used in other sections of the by-law,
Sections 16 and 17 of the draft by-law provide for the posting of no-smoking signs
in a conspicuous manner at each entrance to a public place or workplace, Should
not the by-law prescribe what constitutes a proper no-smoking sign and more
clearly describe just what a "conspicuous manner" actually means?
Section 23 of the by-law describes particular incidents or arguments that cannot be
used in defence to any charge made pursuant to the by-law. ]:n certain situations,
the incidents or arguments described in the by-law are arguably reasonable grounds
for a defence. Also, considering the provisions relating to smoking and signs in the
by-law, arguably Section 23 of the by-law is unnecessary and inappropriate.
127
1 '3 4
APPENDIX C
Cc ~
Area Municipalities' Issues Re.qardinq Regional Smoking By-la,.,,'
Currently, all of the eight area municipal Councils have considered the Regional
Smoking By-Law Report and have responded to Regional staff regarding their
approval for Regional Council to pass a by-law regulating smoking in public
places and workplaces. According to Legal staff, five municipalities have given
their approval unconditionally, two have apprOved with recommendations and
one has not given approval. Most municipalities commented favourably on the
public, consultation that was done over the summer and on the thoroughness and
professionalism of the by-law report.
Seven municipalities approved of a Regional smoking by-law. Many brought
forward recommendations .or concerns regarding specific areas of the draft bY-
law. This rePort will address the recommendations and concerns of the
municipalities.
Areas of Clarification
Private Clubs (Town of Ajax)
Some municipalities asked for clarification of specific sections of the draft by-law.
The issue of private clubs was raised and whether private clubs would be subject
to the by-law restrictions when hosting a function that is attended by non-
members. It is the intent of the by-law that anytime a private club is open to the
public, the restrictions would apply. This is contained in Section 7 of the by-law,
which states, 'q'he prohibitions and regulations in this by-law shall not apply to
private clubs during such time periods when such private clubs are closed to
members of the public".
Vehicles (Town of Ajax)
There was a request to clarify the definition of vehicle. It is the intent of the by-
law that a vehicle used to transport the public would be subject to the by-law
restrictions. As defined in Section 1 (q) a "public transport vehicle" means any
vehicle used for transporting the public and includes a bus and a passenger
vehicle used for hire such as a taxi or limousine. Also, it is the intent of the by-law
that any vehicle that is a workplace is subject to the by-law restrictions. Thus, the
definition of workplace in Section 1 (y) includes "a public transport vehicle and
any other vehicle in which an employee works but does not include a private
dwelling".
No-Smoking Signs (Town of WhitbY)
The issue of no-smoking signs was discussed by one municipal Council. Section
1 (m) defines a "no-smoking sign" to mean a sign at least 10 centimetres in
diameter showing an illustration of a black, lit cigarette on a white circle
128
surrounded by a red border with a width equal to one tenth of the diameter, with
a red diagonal stroke of the same width crossing over the cigarette from the
upper left to the lower portion of the circle. There is a requirement in Sections 15
and 16 of, the by-law for no-smoking signs to be posted in a "conspicuous
manner". This wording is consistent with the Tobacco Control Act and the intent
is to ensure the sign is visible and the public is informed that smoking is
prohibited.
Smoking in the Workplace Act (Municipality of Clarington)
The Ontario Smoking in the Workplace Act became effective January 1, 1990.
The purpose of the Act is to restdct workplace smoking by establishing minimum
standards that limit exposure to tobacco smoke in the workplace. However, the
Act provides no protection for non-smokers. The Act states that in the event of
conflict between this Act and a municipal by-law respecting smoking in a
workplace, the provision that is the most restrictive of smoking prevails. The draft
by-law is more restrictive than the Act; therefore the by-law would prevail.
Definition of Recreational Facilities (Township of Uxbridge)
One municipal Council requested clarification of the definition of recreational
facilities as stated in the draft by-law. A letter of clarification was sent on October
2, 2002. (Annex 1)
The Issue of DSRs in Bars (Town of Ajax, City of Oshawa)
Two municipalities recommended that the Region consider making allowances in
the by-law for bars to have designated smoking rooms (DSRs). These
municipalities conducted additional public meetings, Ajax on October 15 and
Oshawa on October 16. One bar owner spoke in favour of DSRs at the Oshawa
public meeting and one at the Ajax meeting.
As is noted in the Regional Smoking By-law Report, during the public
consultation, the issue of DSRs was brought forward by some Durham Region
residents and business owners. People commented on problems inherent with
DSRs including the cost of building and maintaining them, which in turn would
create an unlevel playing field. In addition, concerns were raised about people
having to work in them. A small number of residents suggested that if smoking is
allowed in restaurants and bars, that DSRs, separately enclosed and separately
ventilated should be established. However, generally throughout the consultation
process, there was little support for DSRs in public places and workplaces and
strong public support for a level playing field.
Other municipalities, based on their experiences, have advised a level playing
field be maintained by treating bars and restaurants equally. As well,
differentiating between restaurants and bars is difficult because the Liquor
135
129
CL- -"q 0 --Co?...
136
License Act does not distinguish between restaurants 'and bars for licensing
purposes. Instead, it provides a single class of license for all establishments that
serve alcohol and in an attempt to reduce public harm associated with alcohol
use, establishments that serve alcohol must also serve food. There are 863
establishments in this category in Durham Region.
Separately ventilated and completely enclosed DSRs do not protect workers from
second-hand smoke. When employees enter these rooms, they are exposed to
all of the harmful chemicals found in second-hand smoke. Employees of the
hospitality industry are most in need of protection. Bar workers during an eight-
hour shift inhale an amount of second-hand smoke equal to actively smoking
neady a pack of cigarettes. The risk of developing lung cancer is 50% higher for
food service workers than for the general population. The establishment of
smoke-free bars and taverns has been associated with rapid improvement of
respiratory health in their employees.
Recently, in a landmark decision, a non-smoking waitress diagnosed with
terminal lung cancer after decades of working in smoky restaurants and bars was
awarded compensation by the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.
This case sets a precedent and clearly identifies exposure to second-hand
smoke as valid and provable grounds for compensation.
DSRs create a financial burden on business owners, which prevents the
establishment of a level playing field. Many establishments cannot afford to build
a DSR. Ventilation systems in DSRs have significant maintenance requirements.
These systems have to be functioning 24 hours a day to maintain the DSR
negative pressure gradient in relation to the smoke-free area. As well, the
ventilation in the DSR has to be monitored regularly. Small business would be
challenged to install and maintain two separate ventilation systems.
DSRs are costly to the municipality. York Region's smoking by-law allows for
DSRs. At the Uxbridge public meeting on June 12, a representative from York
Region outlined the considerable costs and challenges involved with DSRs.
She recommended:
· requiring the DSR to post the maximum occupancy load at the entrance
· prohibiting anyone under 19 years from entry
· hiring an experienced engineering firm or work in collaboration with the area
municipality's Building Department in reviewing and approving the DSR.
· employing dedicated staff to develop and implement the DSR approval
process
· creating appropriate DSR educational and promotional materials
· holding DSR information workshops for Regional and Municipal staff,
proprietors, and hospitality workers
· ongoing review of the DSR approval process
There is a substantial argument for having smoke-free public places and
workplaces and limiting DSRs to a few establishments (i.e. gaming
130
establishments). In addition, generally throughout the public consultation process
there was little support for DSRs in public places and workplaces. At the same
time, many people expressed concerns for the health of employees who work in
DSRs. DSRs are very costly for business owners and it would be costly for the
Region to approve and monitor DSRs in bars.
The issue of DSRs for gaming establishments was discussed by several
municipalities during their deliberations. Generally, favourable comments were
made about the decision to allow DSRs for gaming, eStablishments because of
the benefits to the community from charity bingo revenues.
The Issue of Ventilation (City of Oshawa)
At the public meetings held in Ajax and Oshawa eadier in October, a directional
airflow ventilation system was advocated by Dan Taite as a solution to exposure
to second-hand smoke. Mr. Taite, who came from Ottawa, spoke at these
meetings representing PUBCO. PUBCO is an association of approximately 300
bars and pubs across Ontario. He did not say how many bars and pubs in
Durham Region are members of this association.
The most up to date technical analysis of why ventilation is not a solution to
exposure to second-hand smoke, is contained in "Protection from Second-Hand
Smoke in Ontario: A review of the Evidence Regarding Best Practices" prepared
by the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit of the University of Toronto in May 2001.
(Annex 2) This document states, '~,Vith these advances in science on several
fronts, the conclusion about ventilation and tobacco smoke nevertheless remains
the same as it was twenty years ago- the ventilation system capable of removing
tobacco smoke from the air does not exist".
The directional airflow system as demonstrated by the Black Dog Pub in
Scarborough, and advocated by Mr. Taite has been presented to municipal
Councils in Ontario by representatives of several hospitality associations. For
example:
· In 1999, when Toronto City Council was considering its smoke-free by-law,
the Ontario Restaurant Association (ORA) and the Greater Toronto Hotel
Association (GTHA) urged Council to adopt the technology as a compliance
option. Dr. Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health for the City of Toronto,
wrote a report recommending that a ventilation option not be included in the
proposed by-law.
· The City of Toronto, ORA and GTHA agreed to ask Health Canada to test the
technology
· Health Canada turned down the request. Their response was:
'~Vhen combusted, cigarettes produce both particulate and
gaseous components. The premise behind ventilation is the
replacement at a constant level, of current air with "fresh" air,
which both removes and dilutes smoke...The problem with
131
ventilation as an exposure reduction strategy is that exposure,
even if the system is operating at maximum efficiency, is never
zero. In other words, in the best case scenario, there is an
explicit acceptance of some level of exposure to non-smokers.
In the worst case scenario, where the ventilation system is
never maintained and becomes inoperative, exposure of non-
smokers to tobacco smoke is maximized .... Since no ventilation
system will protect everybody, and might even delude non-
smokers into a false sense of protection, it is concluded that
such systems are not as good as a total ban... It is
recommended that the City of Toronto be informed that Health
Canada will not test the proposed system"
In April 2002, a representative of the Ontado Restaurant, Hotel and 'Motel
Association (ORHMA), appeared before the City of Toronto's Economic
Development Committee advocating for ventilation as a by-law compliance
option. This request was rejected.
In June, 2002, based on a delegation from the Canadian Restaurant and
Foodservice Association and Ontario Restaurant, Hotel and Motel
Association, York Regional Council asked Regional staff for a complete report
on the feasibility of a pilot project to test an "energy recovery ventilation
system" in a local restaurant. This report, accompanied by an independent
engineering report which cast doubt on the technology, was presented to
York Region's Health and Emergency Services Committee on September 5,
2002 '(Annex 3). The Committee unanimously, and subsequently Council,
rejected the request by these two hospitality associations to test the
ventilation technology.
We are not aware of any other municipality in Ontario where a by-law is under
development, or has recently been passed or implemented, that allows
directional airflow ventilation systems as a compliance option. Based on all the
current information we have, it is clear that ventilation provides no solution to the
problem of exposure to second-hand smoke.
The Concern Related to Notification and Involvement of Billiards, Casino--~
and Racetracks (City of Oshawa)
At the Oshawa Municipal Council meeting on September 30, 2002, a question
was raised about the involvement of billiards, casinos and racetracks in the
public consultation process, specifically how they were notified, .what discussions
took place and what their input was.
A covering letter and Notice of Public Consultation was mailed out to the
following establishments in May 2002:
Cadillac Billiards
Central Billiards
G. Cue's Billiards
Oshawa
Oshawa
Whitby
132
Harwood Billiards
Joe's Billiards
Le Skratch Billiard B & G
Partners Billiards
Petrina's Taps & Billiard
Petrina's Taps & Billiard
Picov Downs
Power of Q Billiards, The
Shooters & Shots Billiard
Ajax
Pickering
Oshawa
Whitby
Ajax
Oshawa
Ajax
Pickering
Bowmanville
A Health staff member met with the management of the Blue Heron Casino in
July 2002 to discuss in general the possible application of a Regional smoking
by-law at the casino. In August, a staff member had a telephone conversation
with the solicitor for the Mississaugas of Scugog First Nation Band. The solicitor
indicated that currently the Mississaugas of Scugog First Nation draft, ratify and
enforce their own by-laws.
A Health staff member met with Mr. Norm Picov, owner of Picov Downs, the only
racetrack in Durham Region in August, 2002. In addition, Mr. Picov called the
telephone comment line to voice his opinions regarding a Regional smoking by-
law. He commented that he felt most gaming establishments should be
exempted. He said he was against smoking in restaurants but felt a by-law would
hurt gaming and said that gamblers smoke.
One of the establishments listed above, Partners Billiards Limited, sent a letter
with their comments regarding a Regional smoking by-law. Their letter outlined
their concern that a smoking by-law would have a direct impact on their business
and they stated that well over 75% of their customers were smokers. While they
acknowledged the impact of second-hand smoke, they felt that a non-smoking
by-law would result in losing many of their customers.
Smokina Regulations for Gamin.q Establishments in Other Jurisdictions ir
Ontario (Town of Ajax)
A review of 24 smoking by-laws of other jurisdictions in Ontario was completed. It
was found that in 10 of these by-laws, either one or more type of gaming facility
(casinos, slots and horse racing venues) was specifically included.
In the City of Ottawa by-law, a specific slot machine gaming facility is designated
as a public place and smoking is prohibited. Other by-laws provide for either
DSRs, total exemptions or allow for smoking in some unenclosed areas of the
designated gaming establishment. For instance, in the Niagara by-law, casinos
and racetracks are on a list of places that are not included in the definition of a
public place, in the City of Toronto's by-law, casinos and racetracks are
designated as "Class D" public places and may establish and designate an
unenclosed smoking area no greater in size than 25% of the occupiable public
133
space in the premises. As of June 1, 2004, unenclosed smoking will be
prohibited and smoking will be permitted in an approved DSR no larger than 25%
of occupiable public space.
Bingo halls are specifically mentioned in 23 of the 24 by-laws that were reviewed.
In 8 by-laws there are no exceptions for bingo establishments, while in 16 by-
laws, bingo establishments have some form of exception. The most common
form of exception for bingo halls is to permit them a DSR not greater than 50% of
the occupiable public place.
Additional information was sought from other boards of health. The Kingston,
Frontenac And Lennox & Addington Health Unit responded that a new charity
casino opened in Gananoque and had agreed, in discussions with the Alcohol &
Gaming Commission, that they would comply with any by-law passed within the
municipality. The Thunder Bay District Health Unit responded that they are
recommending an Ottawa style by-law and that bingos and their local casino
(downtown) would be treated as any other place and follow all provisions. There
is no plan to regulate smoking on the Fort William First Nation Reserve.
Ashtrays (Town of Whitby)
The issue of whether the draft smoking by-law would prevent retailers from
selling ashtrays was discussed by two municipal Councils. By-laws from 24
jurisdictions in Ontario were reviewed .regarding the inclusion of ashtray
provisions. In 21 of these by-laws there are clauses regarding ashtrays. Most by-
laws place the onus on the proprietor or other person in charge of a public place
to ensure that no ashtrays are placed or allowed to remain in any public place
where smoking is prohibited pursuant to this by-law. The statements regarding
placement of ashtrays in places where smoking is prohibited are an important
component of a by-law. The presence of ashtrays represents a tacit acceptance
of smoking and may even be seen as an invitation to smoke.
Chanaes to the Draft By-law
Based on responses from the municipalities, and continued scrutiny by the
Region's Legal staff, there are some revisions that have been made to the draft
by-law. At the October 16, public meeting in Oshawa, a delegate representing
the bingo operators requested that Section 1 (f) (iv) of the draft by-law
conceming the definition of "designated smoking room" be amended and
redefined so as to include the common area of the building or structure in the
allotted non-smoking area. It is thought, that this change can be made without
substantially altering the intent of the draft by-law, which is to protect non-
smokers. This clause has been deleted from the by-raw.
Section 9 has been changed. It will read "Subject to sections 4,5,6 and 7 above,
no proprietor shall permit a person to smoke in a public place. Section 11, which
134
states "Subject to sections 4,5,6 and 7 above, no proprietor shall permit a person
to smoke in a public place" then becomes redundant and has been removed.
After further consideration by the Legal staff, it was decided that Section 23 be
deleted. Section 23 states "It shall not be a defence to any charge made
pursuant to this by-law that: (a) no or insufficient no-smoking signs were posted;
or (b) a proprietor or employer did not warn that smoking was not permitted".
The statements in the draft by-law regarding ashtrays are intended to prohibit
placing ashtrays in a public place or workplace for the use of smokers, not to
prohibit retailers from selling ashtrays. This distinction can be emphasized by
including the words "for the use of smokers" in the clauses about ashtrays.
Sections 8,10,12 and 14 of the by-law have been changed to reflect this.
The draft by-law has been changed to include the following definition of an
ashtray. An ashtray "means a receptacle of any type being used for tobacco
ashes and for cigar and cigarette butts".
135
October 2, 2002
Annex '1'
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
Head Office
.1615 Dundas Street East
Suite21.0
Whitbyl Ontario
Canada L1N 2L1
'(905) 723-8521
Fax: I905) 723-6026
Tot: (905) 686-2740
Mr. Walter E. Taylor
Township Clerk
The Corporation of the Township of Uxbridge
Town Hall
51 Toronto Street South
P.O. Box 190 '-
Uxbridge~ ON L9P 1T1
Dear Mr. TaYlor:
Re: Regional Smoking By-law - Your File: GR-313.
Thank you for ihfor:ming, me on September 251 2002 aboL~ your Councii's
Position which supports the implementation of a Regional smoking by-law. "' "'
Further to-Council's request for.ciadfication about the definit'ion Of.. recreational
facilities and in .consultatiOn.with· Township Staff and our'Legal Department;'. I '
can adVise you that facilities'such" as rural halls and community centres c(j~e
within 'the definition Of ."recreatiorial facility" as embodied in' the dtaff. Regional'-
smoking by-law that is'appended-to the Regional Smoking By-laW"Rep0rt.:-.-. -
Moreover, these facilities als0 6ome'Within'.the .definition of "municiPal bbiiding".
if they are owned, co'ntrolled, leased Or used by th~, RegiOn or-{he 'area.
municipalities.. Finally," both municipal buildings and recreational.' facilities'are
.designated as."public places"' in section 2 of. the draft Regional smoking.by-law.
! trust.that the foregoing answer'is' satisfactory. Please do not hesitate.to
contact me if you require any additional advice or information. "
Yours sincerely,
obert' J. Kyle',.MD, M,'Sc, CCFP, FR~PC
Commissioner.and Medical Officer'of Health
RJK/kg '
~C: Regional COuncilloi- Larry O'Connor
Steven Kamay
Carol Smittoh
"SER VICE EXCELLENCE
for
136
Annex 2
Protection from second-hand to'~o smoke in Ontario
143
.L. C,.- - q o -oz
No solution through ventilation
Introduction
In 198 I, the United States National Academy of Sciences assembled an expert panel to
review a varie~ of indoor pollution and ventilation issues, including tobacco smoke in
the workplace? For its time, the report of their work, entitled Indoor Pollutants, was the
most authoritative scientific statement on indoor air pollution extant. The report
concluded that a ventilation system capable of completely removing tobacco smoke from
the air did not exist.
The information on ventilation in the 1981 National Academy of Sciences report has
been surpassed by many advances in ventilation science over the past two decades. Our
knowledge of the health hazards of second-hand smoke, in its infancy in 1981, has also
grown exponentially, as has our knowledge of the physics and chemistry of tobabco
smoke in indoor air.
Twenty Years ago, techniques of air cleaning and recycling were less sophisticated than
they are today. Little knowledge of the behaviour of tobacco smoke in indoor air was
available. Now, we have predictive models that can tel1 us with great reliability how
much of several components of tobacco smoke will be present in indoor air under
different conditions of smoking and ventilation. In 1981, the very first papers were being
published pointing to a possible relationship between exposure to second-hand smoke
and lung cancer. Now, scientific consensus has been established that exposure to second-
hand smoke causes lung cancer and is a known or suspected cause of many other diseases
or conditions (see Table 2).
With these advances in science on several fronts, the conclusion about ventilation and
tobacco smoke nevertheless remains the same as it was twenty years ago - the ventilation
system capable of removing tobacco smoke from the air does not exist.
The policy implications of this fact are more profound than they were twenty years ago.
In 1981, there was still scientific debate about whether or not exposure to second-hand
smoke was hazardous, and whether or not exposure should be reduced. Now, scientific
consensus has been established - exposure to second-hand smoke causes lung cancer,
heart disease and many other diseases. Moreover, scientists around the world agree - the
only safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke is no exposure at all. If ventilation
were to offer an effective public health solution to the problem of exposure to second-
21
137
Protection from second-hand tc .;co smoke in Ontario
hand smoke in the workplace, it would have to ensure virtually no exposure to second-
hand smoke.
In the remainder of this section, documentation will be provided demonstrating that such
a ventilation system does not exist. It will also be demonstrated that a preferred control
method is to ban smoking in all public places and workplaces.
Ventilation standards
Heating, ventilation and air conditioning engineers around the world look to the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
for guidance and standard setting on determining ventilation rates for the buildings they
design and manage. ASHRAE standards are frequently written into laws and 'regulations
governing ventilation rates. Even when they are not written into law, they are widely
followed by engineers and building managers as the preferred code of practice for
ventilation rates. ASHRAE standards are the most widely observed code of ventilation
practice in Canada.
The ASHRAE standard that governs indoor air quality is called Ventilation for
Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, ASHRAE Standard 62-1999. This standard was revised
in 1973, 1981, 1989 and 1999. The most recent revision is significant because it takes
into account new knowledge on the health effects of second-hand tobacco' smoke (See
Table 2).
The revision removed a provision (present in the 1989 version of the standard) that
recommended ventilation rates for the control of odours from second-hand tobacco
smoke.24 With the 1999 revision, ASHRAE, in essence, deferred to other authorities for
standard setting on second-hand tobacco smoke, a known carcinogen. Now ventilation
rates proposed by ASHR_AE only apply to air free from tobacco smoke. For dealing with
tobacco smoke, ASHRAE recommends the reduction of"the concentration of all known
contaminants of concern to some specified acceptable level." To determine this level,
one is referred to a list of health authorities that include the US Environmental Protection
Agency, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the
American Lung Association, the National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health,
the National Academy of Sciences, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
and the Surgeon General. There is consensus among all these scientific agencies - there
should be no exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.
In revising its standard, ASHRAE adhered to a time-tested principle of sound public
health and ventilation engineering practice. First, remove known sources of air pollution,
and only then apply air cleaning and ventilation techniques. Revised standard 62-1999
adheres closely to this principle. ASHRAE no longer provides ventilation standards for
air with tobacco smoke in it, only for air in smoke-free buildings.
To sum up, ASHRAE, the premier ventilation rate standard-setting agency in the world
has said, in essence, the only air for which it sets ventilation standards is air that is
already smoke-free.
22
138
CL. P. rc)tection from second-hand tob,.~co smoke in Ontar~%
Searching for a ventilation solution
The revised ASHRAE standard was adopted only after considerable debate. Appeals
were heard from many interests. Appellants included ventilation engineers, the tobacco
industry and the Neighbourhood Pub Owners' Association of British Columbia. 25 All
points of view were heard and considered before revisions to the standard were decided.
Throughout the appeals procedure, the appeals panel indicated that-ventilation standards
could possibly be developed if cognizant health authorities were to define some safe non-
zero level.of exposure to second-hand smoke. That has not happened. In fact the appeals
panel remarked, "The statements of cognizant health authorities have become more
definitive and are unanimous with respect to the health impacts of ETS." As described
earlier, health authorities have been unanimous in recommending that we move as
quickly as reasonably possible towards eliminating all exposure to second-hand tobacco
smoke. No scientific basis has been found for recommending a non-zero limit for
exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.
Notwithstanding the scientific conclusiOn that all exposure to second-hand smoke should
be avoided, the search for a ventilation solution continued. In 1998, US OSHA and
ACGIH teamed up to sponsor a scientific review by a panel of fourteen ventilation
experts to determine if there were technically and economically feasible engineering
controls for environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants, bars and casinos. Their review
was conducted in a scientific workshop held in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky in June 1998.
The panel was instructed to conduct their work assuming that total elimination of second-
hand tobacco smoke was not an option? ,
Panelists concluded that well-mixed dilution ventilation, the overwhelming majority of
current installations, was unsatisfactory for controlling worker exposure to ETS in
hospitality venues. Local area exhaust ventilation, smokeless ashtrays, air cleaning, and
displacement ventilation were identified as potentially more effective. Of these,
displacement ventilation was thought to hold the most promise. Based on professional
judgement, not measured data, panelists felt that a 90% reduction in levels of ambient
tobacco smoke could be achieved under the most favourable conditions. Panelists noted,
however, a number of practical problems: most ventilation engineers are unfamiliar with
displacement technolOgy; there would be difficulty in retrofitting existing installations;
and there could be aesthetic problems.
Why ventilation solutions do not work
The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed
(but not yet implemented) a rule on smoking in the workplace that would reduce
exposure to tobacco smoke to zero for many workers in many workplaces.7 Banning
smoking in the workplace is the preferred option under the proposed rule. However,
smoking could be allowed under certain circumstances that were intended to greatly
reduce exposure to tobacco smoke for non-smoking workers:
23
139
146
Protection from second-hand to..co smoke in Ontario
;Tobacco smoke.
(i) In workplaces where the smoking of tobacco products is
not prohibited, the employer shall establish designated
smoking areas and permit smoking only in such areas;
(ii) The employer shall assure that designated smoking
areas are enclosed and exhausted directly' to the outside,
and are maintained under negative pressure (with respect
to surrounding spaces) sufficient to conta& tobacco smoke
within the designated area;
(iii) The employer shall assure that cleaning and
ma&tenance work in designated smoking areas is
conducted only' when no smoking is taking place;
(iv) The employer shall assure that employees are not
required to enter designated smoking areas in the
performance of normal work activities;
(v) The employer shall post signs clearly indicating areas
that are designated smoking areas;
(vi) The employer shall post signs that will clearly inform
anyone entering the workplace that smoking is restricted to
designated areas; and
(vii) The employer shall prohibit smoking within designatbd
smoking areas during any period that the exhaust
ventilation system servicing that area is not properly
operating.
This proposed role has not been implemented in the United States. Under current
legislation, it could not possibly be implemented in Ontario. Under the proposed OSI4_A
scheme, tobacco smoke would be present in the working areas. Smokers would be
exposed to it during the main working hours. Cleaning staff (who may be smokers or
non-smokers) would enter at other times and be exposed to tobacco smoke remaining in
the air, tobacco smoke particulates adhering to surfaces, and tobacco smoke re-released
into the air. These eXposures to tobacco smoke, affecting both smokers and cleaning staff
that enter the smoking rooms, would be contrary to the Ontario Occupational Health and
Safety Act. They would all necessarily result in worker exposure to seventeen chemicals
in tobacco smoke (see Table 3 p. 39) which, under the regulations, are "known toxic
agents for which exposure values have not been established, and to which any exposure
should be avoided."
In further considering the limitations of their proposed rule, OSHA recognized that
smoking areas could not easily be constructed in bars, restaurants and casinos, prompting
OSHA to co-sponsor with ACGIH the 1998 scientific workshop referred to above.
However, the workshop did not produce any ready answers to the question of how
smoking could continue to be allowed in bars, restaurants and casinos and still ensure the
health and safety of workers and patrons.
24
140
Protection from second-hand to~.,~,.co smoke in Ontario
At the request of the California Department of Health Services, James Repace conducted
such a further analysis. The analysis ,.vas completed in June 2000 and has been published
electronically by the California Department of Health Servmes.- Repace provided a
synopsis of the Fort Mitchell Workshop proceedings and then noted a number of
shortcomings:
Despite the wealth of ETS data in the literature compiled in
more than a half dozen reports, phis the fact that indoor air
quality models have been tinder development for more than
forty years, the panel did not use either models or data to
characterize existing ETS exposures in hospitality venues.
The panel did not apply the indoor air qUality procedure in
ASHRAE 62, section 6.2, which provides a direct solution
to the problem by restricting concentration of ETS to some
specified acceptable level. No data were presented to
substantiate the panelists'beliefthat 90% reductions in
ETS concentrations were obtainable under either
controlled studies or in the field, especially in the view of
the caveats raised about placement of supply air ducts,
turbulent flows, and blowing smoke down or towards the
workers (as often happens in casinos). Moreover, in view
of OSHA's estimates of more than 13,000 workers'deaths
per year from ETS exposure, the panel's attitude that only
a 90% reduction is sufficient for ETS control seems
cavalier. The panel's confidence in displacement
ventilation is not well founded. In addition, the panel's
conclusion on ETS-RSP being poorly correlated to more
specific measures is not supported. Individual variability
in cotinine levels does not compromise assessment of ETS
dose.
In his comment, Repace noted that the ASHRAE standard does recommend application
of the Indoor Air Quality Procedure when human carcinogens (such as tobacco smoke)
are present. Repace then applies this procedure to the problem of tobacco smoke in
hospitality venues.
In the first step, hazard assessment, Repace reviewed much of the same scientific
literature reviewed in the "Health effects of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke"
section of this report, and noted essentially tl'/e same conclusion - scientific and health
authorities are u. nanimous - all involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke should be
avoided.
He noted that 103 chemicals in tobacco smoke have been identified as hazardous by
various scientific and regulatory authorities in the United States and identified respirable
small particles (RSP), together with nicotine and its metabolite, cotinine, as markers for
tobacco smoke in ambient air.
25
_ 141
Protection from second-hand tc ;co smoke in Ontario ~ C,L. ~ ~0 --C~'~
The Fort Mitchell Workshop noted that general dJiution Yenti]ation accounted f`or about
99% of'current heating, ventilation and air-conditioning installations. In the parlance of'
outdoor air pollution control, genera] dilution ventilation would be called reasonably
achievable control technology (RACT). RACT is characterized by the US Environmental
Protection Agency for outdoor air pollution control purposes as the lowest limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility.
The Fort Mitchell Workshop also concluded, based on the professional judgement of the
pa~icipants, that a 90% reduction in tobacco smoke in indoor air could be achieved
through application of displacement ventilation, coupled with the use of ventilated,
downdraft ashtrays. Dilution ventilation requires the air to be well mixed, while
displacement ventilation uses the opposite strategy. Supply air is released at floor level
and'is 5-10 degrees cooler than room air. Convection currents Cause the air to rise, along
with warm tobacco smoke. The tobacco-smoke-laden air is then exhausted through
exhaust grilles near the ceiling on the opposite side Of the room from the supply vents.
While workshop participants noted a number of problems ~vith displacement ventilation,
it can nevertheless be considered the best available control technology (BACT).
Repace then provided quantitative risk assessments of exposure to second-hand smoke
under both RACT and BACT. Under the BACT model, he assumed that a 90% reduction
in environmental tobacco smoke could actually be achieved with displacement
ventilation, despite the reservations that Fort Mitchell workshop participants noted about
this technology. Based on the eXtensive scientific literature on the subject, Repace used a
combination of field measurement data and risk modeling techniques to provide estimates
of tobacco smoke concentrations (as measured by RSP-ETS) in smoking lounges, bars,
restaurants, casinos and bowling alleys.
In the United States, there are no national regulatory standards for to'bacco smoke in the
workplace.* However, there are many other standards for regulating contaminants in both
indoor and outdoor air. These standards are based on a considerable body of literature
that provides the philosophical and scientific basis for standard setting for indoor and
outdoor air contamination control. Travis et al. 28 discuss the concepts of de rninirnis and
de manifestis risks. In general, de rninirnis risks are so low that regulatory agencies
almost never take action to reduce the risks to a lower level. De manifestis risks are so
high that regulatory action is almost always imperative. Travis et al. reviewed 132 past
regulatory decisions and concluded that de manifestis risk in practice corresponded to a
lifetime risk of mortality of 3 per ten thousand (3 x 10'4) while de minirnis risk was one in
a million (1 x 10'e). However, these proposals have not been adopted. In Canada, greater
levels of protection have been indicated. The Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency has observed that conventional levels of acceptable risk (de minirnis risk) range
from a low of one in 10 million (1 x 10'7) to a high of one in ten thousand (1 x 104)?)
· This is not the case in Ontario. In Ontario, str/ct application ot'the Occupational Health andXafe~y Act and its associated regulation
Control of~-rposttre to Biological or Chemical Agents would result in the elimination of tobacco smoke from Ontario workplaces.
26
142
~-,, Protection from seccnd-hand tot~ ~co smoke in Ontario
The United States Occupational Safety and _HeaJth Administration has also defined a 45-
year working ]J£etime risk ]eve] of ! death per 1000 workers at risk as corresponding to a
"significant risk of material impairment of health."
Using data from observations ofrespirable suspended particulate from environmental
tobacco smoke (RSP-ETS), known risk-exposure relationships and risk modeling
techniques, Repace estimated excess lifetime mortality risk in smoking lounges, bars,
restaurants, casinos and bowling alleys. He compared these to de manifestis and de
minirnis risks as described by Travis et al., and to the significant risk level defined by
OSHA.
Excess mortaliry for workers due to exposure to tobacco smoke in these locations ranges
from 15 to 26 times higher than the one-in-a-thousand siznificant risk level defined by
OSHA. It is 1.5 to 2.6 million times higher than the Iow~est (one-in-ten million) level of
acceptable risk discussed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Regular
patrons of these hospitality industry establishments fare little better. Even if they were
exposed only about 10% &the time of employees, their level of risk would also exceed
the OSHA significant risk level.
Repace then discusses how well various ventilation alternatives protect workers in the
hospitality industry. Using ordinary dilution ventilation (reasonably available control
technology - RACT), workers are still exposed to risks 20,000 times the de rninimis
level.
Despite doubts about the achievability of a 90% reduction in tobacco smoke witfi
displacement ventilation (best available control technology - BACT), Repace
nevertheless assumed that a 90% reduction was achievable. Even with optimum
performance of this best available technology, hospitality workers would still be exposed
to risks two thousand times greater than the de minirnis risk level. There is no known way
to make dilution ventilation twenty thousand times more effective at providing protection
from tobacco smoke, nor any known way of making displacement ventilation two
thousand times more effective.
Repace concluded by noting that there is an obvious solution to the problem of tobacco
smoke in hospitality venues, and more generally all workplaces. Banning smoking in the
workplace would remove the risk entirely at no cost, while providing sigr~ificant health
benefits to workers and the public.
149
Could there be a ventilation solution in the future?
Improvements in ventilation technology. It seems entirely unlikely that ventilation
technology could become twenty thousand times more effective at removing tobacco
smoke from the air, even with the most remarkable of technological advances. Systems
have been imagined that are ten times more effective, but as Repace has demonstrated,
even these systems would have to become a further two thousand times more effective to
achieve the requisite level &protection.
27
143
150
Protect/on from second-hand ,, .cco smoke in Ontario
Improvements in air cleaning technology. ASHRAE has examined air cleaning
technology carefially and concluded that none exists to effectively reduce tobacco smoke
in the air to levels that would provide adequate public health protection? In response to
a query on this matter, an ASHRAE appeal panel replied:
Before air cleaning can be applied in a definitive manner,
target concentrations of alt ETS constituents that affect
health or cause odour or irritation must be identified, and
the removal efficiency of the air cleaning device with
respect to each of these constituents must be established by
a repeatable ratingprocedure. The state-of-the-art is not
yet at this level. In particular, no cognizant health
authorities have established ETS concentrations that result
in a reasonable health risk. Until these technical issues are
addressed, the standard cannot provide definitive
procedures for using air cleaners to control ETS.
Development of new technology capable of removing or reducing most of the more than
100 toxic agents from air polluted by tobacco smoke seems unlikely. Even if it were to
happen, it would be a long time before the new technology found its way into an
ASHRAE standard. ASHRAE takes a prudent, deliberate and cautious approach to
changing its air quality standards.
Allowing some exposure to tobacco smoke. ASHRAE has indicated that a ventilation
standard could be proposed for smoking areas if, in the future, recognized health
authorities were to propose some non-zero standard for exposure to tobacco smoke.
However, this seems unlikely. On the basis of current knowledge, health authorities
agree that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Furthermore, as
knowledge has advanced, we have found more, not fewer, diseases to be associated with
second-hand tobacco smoke. Recent findings have pointed to second-hand smoke as a
possible risk factor for breast cancer and strokes. With more knowledge of the health
effects of second.,hand smoke, we will likely see development of reasonably accurate
estimates of mortality attributable to exposure to second-hand smoke for these additional
diseases. The continuing development of more accurate knowledge of more diseases
associated with second-hand smoke makes it unlikely that any scenario could be foreseen
where health authorities would recommend a non-zero level of exposure to second-hand
smoke as safe. ASHRAE has indicated that it is developing guidance for restaurants-
where smoking is permitted. To date, however, no such guidance has been published?
Separate smoking areas with separate ventilation. OSHA has proposed a system
whereby smoking areas and their air exhaust could be kept entirely separate from other
work areas? Under this scheme, workers could not be required to enter the smoking
areas. Smoking areas would be required to have separate exhaust to the outside and
negative pressure ventilation. However, this proposed system could not be implemented
in Ontario without coming into conflict with Ontario regulations that declare, "any
exposure should be avoided" to "known toxic agents," of which seventeen so identified
in the Ontario regulations are also present among the 103 known poisons in tobacco
smoke.
28
· " ._~.rctection from second-hand tou,,,,.co smoke in Ontatfo
Accommodating smokers and non-smokers. By the expedient of simply disag-reeing
with the scientific findings on the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke, the
tobacco industry promotes the notion that smokers and non-smokers can accommodate
each other in workplaces and, in particular, in the hospitality industry. Statements to this
effect appear on the web sites of all major tobacco companies.3~ To this end the tobacco
industry sponsors the Courtesy of Choice campaign for the hospitality industry. Many
hotels, bars and restaurants endorse this principle of accommodation and participate in
the Courtesy of Choice campaign. However, there are no scientific findings or public
health protection principles underlying the notion of the safe accommodation of tobacco
smoke in indoor air. The Hotel Association of Canada has so far received a total of 53.2
million at the rate of $800,000 per year from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council to operate the Courtesy of Choice campaign. 32 The notion of accommodation
of tobacco smoke in the workplace is not based on any principle of public health
protection and flies in the face of the scientific findings that any exposure to second-hand
smoke is hazardous. Finding some way of accommodating tobacco smoke in the
workplace, as advocated by the tobacco industry and their financial partners in the
hospitality industry, will not provide protection from second-hand smoke.
A ventilation solution is unlikely in the future. Sound science remains open to new
possibilities in the future. However, given all knowledge accumulated to date in the
health, risk assessment and ventilation sciences, it seems entirely unlikely that tobacco
smoke in indoor workplaces could ever be reduced to safe levels through the application
of ventilation technology.
Ventilation provides no solution to the problem of exposure to second-hand smoke.
15i
29
145
~uu J~ l~;~ H~ ¥ONK N=~ M~RLTH SERUIg85 895 2551 IU 8!9~bYZ56026
llqR REGION MI/NICIPALITY OF YORK
Annex 3
Health and Emergency Medical Services Committee
September 5, 2002
Report of the
Commissioner of Health Services
VENTILATION PILOT PROJECT
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is ~ecommemded tha~
1. Health ~ud Emergency Medic~ Services Committee ~ l~ion~l Council receive this
report zc~axcl~g the feasibility of conducting z yen '.i~tion pilot p~oject for info~-tion
purposes.
The l{egioe~l Clerk circ~te this report to the ~xe~ mu~xicip~lities; the City of Toronto;
Simcoe County; the Regions of Peel, Hdton .nd Durh.,~; ~ the proponents for the. ix
infonx~don.
PURPOSE
At meetings of the Hexlth ~md Emergency Medical S~c~ Co~~ ~d ~o~1
Co~ hdd zespe~y omJ~e 13 ~d]~e 27, 2002, ~e fo~o~g ~dom w~
pzo~d to smff~ z~e~ m ~c ~sue ofv~~ ~:
"That in ehe spirit of preserving the integrity of the Regicm's Ho-Smol~g
By-law ~d protec6ng the health and safety of the residents of York Region:
a) Ail information received fzom the deputants be presented to staff foz ·
complete zepoxt on thc feasibility of a pilot proi¢ct to study the
p:opone=~s' [C~ Resta~ant and Foodsezvices Association and the
Ontazio Restaurant, Hotel and MOtel Association] ventilation technology;
and
b) The zepozt be pzesented to the Septemb~ 5; 2002 meeting of thc Health
and ]Emergency Medical SerHces Committee."
Tkis report will:
· Review ehe Designated Srnok~n§ l~oom (DSi~) and v~on ~tem
p~su~t to ~e York R~on N~Smo~ By-hw.
· Discuss the fe~b~ of a pilot study bas~ on ~e proposfl subdued by ~e
proponents dated ~y 30, 2002 md receded ~ ~e He~ S~ces D~~t on
Au~st 15, 2002.
HeaJtfl and Emergency Medlc~ Services Committee
September 5. 2002
146
Ventil3tion P;Iot Projec~
BACKGROUND
For many yem's health authorities a=o~d ~ wo~d h~v~ concluded ~ Envko~
ToMcco Smoke ~TS) c~uses c~c= ~d ~ =~os=e m ETS shoed be ~at~. I~ ~s
~so bc~ ~b~hed ~a~ ~ b~ on ~o~ acd~s ~ ~e o~ ~ to dd a
~ o~ ETS.
3.1 The Current York Region No-Smoking By-law
Thc No-Smoking B¥-hw was Imssed b7 ~~ Co~ ~ Ocmb= 2000. P~= I o{ ~
~pl~don o~ ~= No~mo~ By-h~ (100% smok~e~ ~o~c~) ~c ~m =ffec~
on ~ 26, 200~.
Phase II came into effect on June 1, 2001, and covers Class ".A_" Public Places (ie.,
restaurants, banquet halls, food courts) and Class '"B" Public Places ('~.e., bowling alle7~,
skating rinks). These facillti~ can ~ither choose to be 100% smo~-~r~ or to incorporat~ a
Designated Smoking Room 0DSB.) wivhi~ their occttpiable space.
On June 1, 2004, Class "C", '~D" and '~" Public Places (i.e., b'flliard halls, bingo halls,
casinos, bars, taverns) can either choose to be 100% smoke-free or to incorporate a DSR
~r/rh;q the~ occupiable space. As of that date, all provisions for designated, ~
smoking a~s will be repealed.
3.1.1 The Designated Smoking Room (DSR) Opt;on
The d~velopmcnt o£ thc York l~gion No-Stooling BT-law ~ud~d ~ =a~ of ~e
best opdo~ ~o: r~o~ o~n~ Tob~c~ ~o~ :cco~=d at ~t ~e.
Prot~g ~e h~ ~d s~fe~ of non-sm~=s, s~ ~d ~ploT~s ~e ~ o~
u~ost ~po~ce to ~e No-Smo~g By-~w Task
Dua:ing the public consul~tion sessions held in locations throu~hout York Region dm-;,~g the
development of the by-law, the optional comtruction' o£a DSR rather than an outright
smoking ban was deemed the most widely acceptable option by m~mbers o£ the public
including representatives o£ the hospitality industry. An Rnvironics surv~ cornmi-~ioned by
thc Health Sczvices Depa~u~ent on behalf of the No-Smotdn.g By-law Task Force between
June 2 and 7, 2000, found that 61% o£ ~ 600 York Region residents surveyed supported
the proposal that 25% o£ the space in st public place should be set aside as a designated
smotdng room. At the time when the No-Smoking By-law was *n~cted, DSRs were seen as
a compromise between the positions adopted by the hospimllty industry and health agexxcies
supporting smoke-free public places.
The DSR requirements that had recently been adopted by the City o£Tomnto and Region of
Peel for Class ';A" and Class "B" Public Places in thei~ respective no-smok.~ng b?-laws were
also caxefi~lly cormidered in order to achieve the highest possible standards at the time and to
encou_--agc consistency a~oss thc three GTA upper-tier municipalities that had adopted
no-smoking by-laws. A consistent approach between these municipalities would afford
approximately 4 ~ill;on people with some protection ~rom ]Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
153
Health and Emergency Medica~ Services Commi~.ee
147 September $. 2002
AUG 38 '82 i6:20 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 81985723602~ P.04/27
154
Vent;lat;on P;Iot Project
Thc £ollowing DSI~ option w~s chosen:
Pursuant to the No-Smoking law,
'"Desi~Tnated Smo~-g l~.oom' or ~DSK' m_~ a. room wi~h;n a b~g or
s~e or p~ &=eof~ w~ Smo~ ~ p~ed ~d ~
~) ~ complet~y Enclosed on ~ ~d~ md not req~ b7 m7 p~on for a
~o:o~e;
b) is cq~pp~ ~ a sep~ate v~on s~ ~t m~s a ~~
venation rote of ~ ~0) ~es p~ second p~ p~on, b~ed on
m~ oc~pm~ lo~( ~t ~ v~ted ~ecfl7 m. ~e ou~ide ~ and
~=~ted at ~ rote o~ at le~t one h~ed ~ tm p~mt (110%) o~
suppl. Su~ ~t m~t be no l~s ~ ~ee (3) me~es ~om my. ~
~e or b~g op~ md
do~ not oc~p7 more ~m ~mw-~e p~c~t (25%) o~ ~e ~p~b~
pubic space ~ ~ b~og or s~c~e or p~ ~eof"
It should be noted ~'h~g in Spring 2002, the DSK spe~4acations fer bingo ha.lis were amended
such that DSR.s in bingo lulls are permitted to occupy no more than 50% of' occuphble
public space.
Furth~, it should be emphasized that the curaent No--SmoL'ing By-law ~ have
provision for a. permanent, unenclosed smoking a~e~ as a compliance opticrm
Cur. re~afl¥, there is no technology that ef£ectivea~r :emowes ~1l non-smoker ETS exposure/n a
fac/lity where smoL'ing is not isolated. Therefore, non-smoldn.g patrons nm¥ be exposed to
s~,~i~cant levels of ETS, at any ~4,~e, unless a facility is declared I00% smoke-free and
smoking activities occur outdoors.
The key element of' the No-Smoldng By-law is that smo~ng occurs in a designated, fully
enclosed area that is ventilated under specific par,,'~rs. Smoking does not occu: in the
s:,me :oom/~ea in which non-smokers and employees are present in order to maximize
their protection from ETS. Through its provisions to enclose those patrons who wish to
smoke, and their companions who choose to be present, in the DSI~s, the by-hw is also
enclo~fi-~g non-smokers in their own area and providing them protection ~rom ETS.
3.2 Proposal for Pilot Study on Ventilation Technologies in
York Region
In June 1999, the Ontario Kestaurant, Hotel and Motel Association (OR2-IMA) and the
Cvrcatc: Toronto Hotel Association (GTHA) held a news conference at the Bhck Dog Pub
located in Sc'a.rborough, Ontario, to release results o£ their demonstration ventilation project.
Thdr results were subsequendy published in December 2001 by Koger.A. J*nldns, Derrick
Finn, Bruce A. TomL';n.% and M. ichael P. Masku~nec, "t~nvi:onmental Tobacco Smoke in
the Nonsmoldng Section of a Restaurant A Case Study," .~e~lato~y To.x~lo~ ;74 t'2001):
2~$-220. The ORaUIMA and GTt-IA called upon the Cit7 of Toronto's CoUncillors to adopt
the Black Dog Pub ventilation technology as a potential compliance option of. the City's
HeaJth and Emergency MeclicaJ Services Cornmi:tee
Se!~:ember 5, 2002
148
Ventilation Pilot Project
pending smoke-f~ee by-hw. The City o£Totonw Bo~d of/~e-~lth nmde ~ £o~'m-! request to
He,eh Can~d.~ to ~ese ~e ~echnolo~ and to p~ovide recomxnend~tions.
In March 2000, .~v~. lan Potter, Health Canada's Assistant Deputy Mi-i¢ter, Health
Promotion ~nd Programs Bw~ch, v,~ed down th~ request to test the technoloo~. ~
Marcia 17, 2000 note on this matter indicated tha¢
'~rhe. n combusted, c/g=ettes produce both particulate and gaseous
components. The premise behind ventilation is the replacement, at a
constant level, of cu=ent ~ir ~4th.'fresh' ~i=, which both removes and dilutes
smoke ...
The problem wkh ventilation as aa exposure reduction stzategy is that
exposure, even if the system is operating at ,~-~kn,,~ efficiency, is never
zero. In ocher words, in the best-case scenario, there is an explicit
acceptance of some level of ~osure to non-m~.okers. In the ~rozst--c~se
scenario, ~zhete the veneihtion system is never maintained and becomes
inoperative, exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke is r~m~ed.
Since no ventilation system va3/protect everybody, and -~;ght even dehade
non-smokers into a false sense of protection, it is concluded ~h~t such
systems ~xe not as good as a total b~... Consequently, ir is recommended
that the City of Toronto be informed that Health Canada will not test the
proposed system..."
At the June 13, 2002, meeting of the Health md Emergency Medi~ Services Co~-aittee,
]Mr. Douglas Nceclb~m of the CRPA and Mr. T~'y Mundcll of the O~, made a
deputation requestkag that a pilot project to evaluate ventilation technology sina{l~ to that in
thc Black Dog Pub be considered in York Region.
Fart. her to the June 2002 meetings of the Health and Emergency Medical Services
Co~nirtee and l~gional Council, a proposal outlining the parame~ for a pilot project to
compare air quality in the no-smoking areas in t~o setdngs ~ith t~o different ventilation
options ~ submitted by the CRFA and the OR_HlVlA to the Regional Municipality of York
(x~.4ttaW~,,~t,! ~). The proposal dated July 30, 2002 was received in the Health Services
Depzxtrncnt on Au~ast 15, 2002.
The submission proposes that "the purpose of the ptoposed test is to ev~luam the air
quality, spec~cally the presence of environmental tobacco smoke OF, TS) in the non-smoit-g
area of a restaurant with an Energy Recovery Ventilation (~R~v~ system, compared to the air
quality in the non-smok~g section of a restaurant which has a ftmctio~i~g des~ted
smol~i~g room ('DSR), as specified in the current York Region No-Smok'~n~ By-la~.'
The Health Services Deparm~ent h~s engaged the asaistance of Dr. U~ Bi~,
Env~onm~tal Hy~st and To~colog~t, Pho~ OHC, ~c., to provide ~ objec~e
~d pa~ renew of &e propos~ sub~=ed by C~A and O~. ~e r~ew ~ to
Health and Emergency' Menaced Services Corem/tree
September 5, 2002
149
AUG 38 '82 !G:20 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2G3! TO 81985?236826 P.OG/2?
C L~ -~( ~ ventilation P~t Project
provide an analysis o£the fe,~i~,ility, reliability and wAidity of pursuing the pilot project as
submitted.
Dr. Bickis has an M.l=.,g. in. Ch,-~Jcal En~jine~g/~dusr. dal Hygiene, and a Ph.D. in
Toxicology. He is accredited by the C~n_~&an and Ame..gc.~m Hy,,~ene Boards (~LOH and
CIH, respccdvely). He has two decades of professional consulting experience dealing with
health ~is 'ks in the human envfi:o-~ent In ad&don to his coz'po=ate affiliation, he is on
adjunct faculty at Queen's University (in the Faculties/Schools of Medicine, Applied Science
and Graduate Studies) as well as at the Royal Military College of Canada and the University
og Ottawa, and lectures at all three. He is a member ofnum~ous pro£essional associations
in the environment/health field.
ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS
4.1 Results of the Third Party Assessment of the CRFA and
ORHMA Ventilation Pilot Project Proposal
The independent review of the proposal submitted by the CRFA and the OR_HMA and
entided '~Protocol for the Testing of the Effectiveness o£ a Ventilation System in a
Kestaurant" conducted by Dr. Ugis Biclds is attached (s~Attatl~t2).
Dr. Bickis states that "it is thc conclusion o£ ~_h_~_~ reviewer dm: the proposed t~dng will not
result in data that can be used to conclude whether the' t~to/acil/des in which the
assessments we. re conducted have an equivalent degree of con=ol over environmental
tobacco smoke. The extrapolation of the findings to othe.:'facilities would be even more
problematic." Thc. zc£ore, the protocol '~ill not adckess the purpose."
4.2 Feasibility of Conducting the CRFA and ORHMA Ventilation
Pilot Project Proposal
The results o£ thc above-mentioned independent review indicate that the pilot study as
proposed by CRFA and OR.HMA ~ not meet the objecthre of compa~ the ak quality of
an tmendosed non-smoking area in a restau_,~t equipped with a specific type of ventilation
tecl~ology with the sit quality of a non-smoking ~te~ in a zest~u.-mlt equipped with a DSK
and the vendlation p~r~meters ~eclui:ed puzsuanc to the York Region No-Smol~ By-law.
Based on the expertise and analysis of the independent zevi~wet, the attempt to compare ak
£:om a non-smoking area within a testatttant which houses smokers and non-smokes in the
s~.m¢ unenclosed floor space at the same time, ~ith the ak ~om a restaurant with ~ £ully
enclosed non-smoking azea and a fully enclosed DSI~, in vzhich smoking occurs, conr~ns too
many variables which cannot bc controlled.
Variables that would need to be adckcsscd as part of the protocol for r~i~ type o£pilot
project to be statistically s~o~ificant include, but are not limited to:
· The specific issue of com?..fing totally enclosed nomsmoking areas with unemclosed
non-smo -ldng areas.
HeaJth angl Emergency MedicaJ Services Committee
September 5, 2002
150
~UG 38 '82 ~:~ FR YO~K REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2~31 TO 81~057236028 P.07/27
Ventilation Pllot Project
· Tl'~e l:ll,Wnber agld location of assessment/control sites in ord~ to ~e out o~
con~bu~g facto= (~~ ~o~ ones).
* ~e n~b~ ~d locadon of o~p~ ~ test md consol sites ~d ~-~o~t of
smo~ ~t~ comum~ ~ ord= m pro'de id~ ~s~ con,ms.
' ~c ~e of~v~s~y :etched ~to~ of ~TS.
* Sound ~es~g me~odolo~.
In addition to thc methodology concerns regaxd;-g the proposed pilot project, a number of
practical considerations exist with respect to the feasibility of embarM-g on such a study in
York Region at this time. Of utmost concern is the identification o£the test ~ites as two
restaurants within York Region. As of June 1, 2001, the ability to have an unenclosed
smoking =ca within Class "A" and Class '~B" l:~ublic Places was repealed by the York Region
No-Smotdmg By-law. Therefore, any ,'estau:.ant site in York Region tl,~t ~ uti~ecl as ~ test
site(s) in such a pilot project would be in non-compliance with the by-law.
Certain restaurants in York Region that have elected to construct DSRs that meet the
requiremcnts o£ thc by-la~r (rather than be 100% smoke-free) could be uriliTcd as tl~ control
sites mentioned in the proposal as long as they: (a) continue to be in compliance with the
by-Nv,,, and (b) possess configuration characte,-L~fics that could be matched or axe
reproducible in other control and test sites. The restaurant configuration(s) used would also
need to be of the type that could allow any results achieved to be universally applicable ~o
other restam-a~t sites in York Region and beyond.
In responding to the direction from Health and Emergency Medical Servic~ Committee and
Re~onal Council to assess the feasibility of conducting a ventilation pilot project, staff
respectfully recommend that the pilot project proposal as submitted by CKFA and ORHMA
not be pursued due to inherent problems in comp-og unenclosed non-smoldng areas with
enclosed non-smoking areas, the technical difficulties in controlling, the multiplicity of
factors outlined by the independent ~eviewer and the practical considerations dese-'hed
above.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Health and Emergency Medical Services Co-,mittee has directed ~h~t all costs for a pilot
project be borne by the proponents. The Health Services Deponent has zecentl7 eng-age, d
Dr. Ugis Bickis, Phoenix OHC, Inc., to p=fonn an independent third party review of the
submitted proposal. The cost of this review, all staff costs and ac°civities a~ociated with ,k;.~
report, and any ~urther staff reviews that may be required wi*~,;~ the current year, can
however be accommodated within the 2002 Health Services Department Budget
LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT
Health Services Department staff continue to communicate and collaborate with
municipalities on matters related to thc cu~ent No-Smoking By-hw. The goal of the
York Region No-Smoking By-law continues to be the protection of the health and safety of
York Region residents from the dangers o£ Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
151
HeaJth and Emergency Medica~ Services Committee
September 5, 2002
RUG 30 '82 16:21FR YORK REG.HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 81905?236026 P.08/27
7.
Ventilation P~ot Project
CONCLUSION
Furthex to the dixection provided by Health and Emex~mcy Medical S~vices Committee
and Regional Council in June 2002 to assess the feasibility of conducting a ventilation pilot
· project as proposed by' CRFA and ORHMA, Health Services D~p~u,,ent safe respectfixlly
submit this :epozt for consideration.
An analysis conducted by the objective, third party reviewer eng~agcd by the H.-_I*~ Sezvices
Dq~t~ment has concluded that the pilot p:oject proposal, ~s submitt~ does not address
the s=ted purpose. In addition, a numb= o£p~actical conside~tions exist with :espect to
the fe-asibRity o£ embarking on such a project at *~i~ ~ in York Region. These axe
desc~ed within this ~epo~
In responding to the direction ficom Health and Emergency Medical S=v;.ces Commi~e and
Regional Council to assess the £eas~ility of conducting a v~ntilation pilot p~oject, s~ff
~espectfully recommend that the p/lot p~oject proposal as submkt~d by CRFA and ORHMA
not be pursued.
Th~ xcport has been ..-~iewed by the Senlox ~nagemmt Group.
Prepa_~d
Diane Bladek-Willctt
D/~c:or, Pohcy and Pla~-g Branch
Recommendcd by:
D~. BL Helena Jaczck
Commission= of Health Sea:vices
and Medical Offic= of Health
A. ugiast 28, 2002
Attachments (2)
Ve-r~On 2-1001-!0-29
Health and Emergency Medical Services Cmmmittee
September 5. 2002
7
152
AUG 30 '02 16:21 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 819~57236826 P.09/27
Canadian Restaurant
and Foodservices
AsSociation
Council Attach, meat 1
159
Association canadieflne
des restaurateurs
et des services
allmentalres
316 8[oor Street We~t
Totoflto, Ontario
Canada
/,ass 1w5
Tel: (416) 923-8416
or 1-800-387-$649
Fax: (416) 923-1450
vnvw.~a.ca
July 30, 2002
Ms. Soo Wong
Project Manager
No-Smoking By-law Enforcement Di,~
ReDon of York
17250 Yonge Street
Newmarket, Ontario
Dear Ms. Wong:
Subject: ETS and EnerKv Recovery Ventilation in Restaurantn
I am writing on behalf of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CKFAj
and the Ontario Restaurant, Hotel & Motel Association (ORttMA) with regard to the
restaurant ventilation pilot project which the Health and Emergency Medical Services
Committee agreed to consider at its meeting of jUne 1~, 2002.
At the June 142 meeting, our associations proposed that a pilot project be undertaken
in two York Re,on restaurants w/th the objective of evaluating the air quality,
specifically the presence of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), in the non-smoking
section of a restaurant with an Ener~ Recovery Ventilation CERV) system compared
to the air quality in the non-smoking section of a restaurant which bas an existing
desi~atcd smoking room (DSK) installed as specified in the current York Region
No-Smoking By-law.
We have taken the liberty of asking Derrick Finn of Finn Projects to prepare the
enclosed guidelines for the proposed test. Mr. Finn is a professional engineer whose '
career has focused bn energy conservation and ventilat/on in hospitality establishments.
He has developed energy efficiency =m.tidelines for restaurants on behalf of Naun-al
Resources Canada. He was also involved in the installation and testing of an EVR
system in Scarborough's Black Dog Pub.
We recognize that the proposed test is a highly complex undertaking and we provide
these guidelines as a means of facilitating consultation and discussion w/th you and
your colleagues at York Re=~on.
153
AUG ~0 '02 !6:2! FR YORK REG HEALTH SERU!90S 89S 2G31 TO 8!905723GO2G P. I0/27
160
-2-
CL- He)
Our two associations look forward to worldng with the you and the Health &
Emergency Medical Services Committee on the development of a protocol to
evaluate thc effectiveness of an EVR system in restaurants.
I look forvca~d to your feedback.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas Needham
President
cc:
Terry Mundell, President, ORI-IMA
Members, Health & Emergency Medical Services Committee
William l:isch, Chairman, York Region
154
PROTOCOL FOR THE TESTING OF THE
JEFFECTIYENESS OF A VENTILATION SYSTEM iN A i:~ESTAURANT
16i
Purpose
The Purpose of the proposed test is to evaluate the air quality, specifically the-
presence of environ.mental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the non-smoking area ora
restaurant with an Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) system, compared to the air
quality in the non-smoking section of a restaurant which has a functioning
designated smok/ng room (DSR), as spec/fled in the current York Region No-
Smoking Bylaw.
II.
Indoor Air Quality Measurements
The object of the mechanical interVention is to determine if the' air quality in the non-
smoking section of the test site can be made comparable to the air quality in other similar
establishments (controI sites) that are regulated non-smoking facilities.
The Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) measurements will be for the following:
Respirable suspended particles.(RSPs). The R.SPs ofinterest are lung-damaging
panicles that may be retained in the lungs and are in the 0.2 to 5 micrometer (jzm)
size range.
..Carbon. monoxide (CO). CO is a by-product of smoking, but also has other
sources of incomplete combustion. High levels of carbon monoxide are deadly. It
is generally recommended that the 8 hour average Should not excc. o:l 9 ppm and
the 1 hour average should not exceed .35 ppm. (ASHRAE 62-1999).
Carbon dioxide (CO_~). CO~. is exhaled by the patrons .and is a very good indicator
of occupancy. It also gives a very good indication of how well the ventilation
system is working. If the CO2 level is low, it means that sufficiem fresh air is
being provided to the restaurant or bar. Outdoor ambient levels of CO2 are
approx. 400 parts per million (ppm). It is generally accepted that indoor levels
should be kept below approx. 1000 ppm.
III.
Initial Testing
Testing will be carried out at the test site prior to the installation.of the new ventilation
system to establish the current levels of RSP concentrations. The RSP sampling
equipment will be located with the CO2 and CO sampling at locations ~o be determined
by the Principal Investigator and the field tcarn.
Samples will be collected on one evening between the hours of 5:00 PM and 12:00 AM.
Page 1 of 5
155
AUG 38 '02 !6:22 FR YORK RE5 HEALTH SERU!90~ 895 263! TO 81905723~02~ P.12×27
IV.
Sampling Plan
a. Test Site
FollOwing the'mechanical intervention at thc test site the testing will be carried out again,
as described in section II above.
Samples will be collected on two separate evenings between the hours orS:00 PM and
12:00 AM.
b. Control Site
Testing will be carried out at the control sit~ to establish the current levels of P,.SP
concentrations, to make direct comparisons with the data obtained from the test site. The
1LSP sampling equipment will be located with the C02 and CO sampling equipment at
locations to be determined by the Principal Investigator and the field te~rn,
Samples will be collected on one evening between the hours ors:00 PM and 12:00 AM.
The projected occupant loadings in the test sites and control sites must be similar for the
test periods.
Samplin§ Equipment
Respirable suspended particulate (1LSP) concentrations will be determined in real .6me,
using a DustTrak 8520 Aerosol Monitor.
Calibration: Calibrate. the unit as per manufacturer's recommendations.
Adjust for altitude, Adjust for the ETS calibration f'a~tor.
Calibration Period:Annually
Calibration Record:Record date of last calibration
Calibration Factor:Calibrate for ETS
Cleaning: Follow manufaclurers cleaning instructions as per
maintenanc,e schedule.
Warm-up Period: Allow 5 minutes for the unit to stabilize before taking
readings.
Operation: Set the flowrate to 1.7 1/rnin, check that the unit h~_s been
zeroed at the sampling temperature. Ensure that there is no
obstruction to air flow around the unit. Use the cyclone
accessory to provide a cut-offat 4/~m. Operate as per
manufacturer's recommendations.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations will be determined in real time, using a YES-206'
Falcon Monitor.
Page 2 of 5
156
AUG 38 '82 16:22 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO
Instrument
Model:
Calibration:
Calibration Period:
Calibration Record:
Calibration Factor:
Warm-up Per/od:
Operation:
C:L- ,qc~ - o l_
163
YES-206 Falcon, Young Environmental Systems/nc.
206L or LH
Calibrate the unit as per manufacturer's recommendations.
Adjust for altitude.
Annually
Reeo~-d.date of last calibration
1.0
Allow 5 minutes for the unit to stabilize before taking
readings.
Ensure that there is at least 5 feet distance fi. om the operator
or other persom as breathing on the instrtunent will affect
the readings. Operate as per manufacturer's
recommendations.
Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations will be determined in real time, using a TSI
Incorporated Q-TRAK Monitor.
Model:
Calibration:
Calibration Period:
Calibration Record:
Calibration Factor:'
Accuracy
Warm-up Period:
Q-TRAK Monitor, TSI Incorporated
Q-TRAK Model g551, or Q-TRAK-Plu~ Model 85S.4
Calibrate the unit as per manufacturer's recommendations.
Adjust for altitude.
Annually
Record date of last eaIibration
1.0
"'3% of reading or 3 ppm, whichever is greater
Allow 5 minutes for the unit to stabilize before taking
readings.
Operation: Program the start time, test duration, sampling frequency
and oth= parameters. Ensure that there is no obstruct/on to
air flow around the unit. Operate as per manm%clvrer's
recommendations.
Sampling durations will be for a minimum of $ hours. This is to insure than an adequate
amount of sample can be obtained for the analytical determinations. Patron counts will
be made once per hour, and cigarette butts will be collected by the wait staffand counted,
to estimate the number of smoking products used by patrons during the measurement
period.
Page 3 of 5
157
Table 1. Summary Of Data to be Acquired
Sample Location RSP . . CO2 CO No. of No. of
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Cigarettes Patrons
Test Site Prior to Intervention Continuous Continuous Continuous Once/hour Once. our
Test Site Evening I Continuous Continuous Continuous Once/hour Once. our
Test Site Evening 2 Continuous Continuous Continuous Once/hour Once/hour
Control Site 1 Continuous Continuous Continuous Once/hour Once/hour
VI.
Data' Validation/Verification
Data validation is a systematic procedure of reviewing a body of data against a set of
established criteria to provide a specified level of assurance 'of its validity prior to use.
The validation process will include Cheeks for internal consistency, checks for tran_~nittal
errors, and cheeks for quaIity control. Eval. uation of these criteria will involve review
Tn~tixtment calibrations' ·
Reproducibility of replicate analyses
Detect/on Limits
Data reporting completeness
Transcription errors
Accuracy of data results calculation
Evaluation of quality control samples
At the completion of the data validation process, the reviewer will prepare a summary of
the results and specify the uses for which the data is suitable.
VII.
Calibration and Maintenance of Field Instruments and Sampling Equipment
Measurements that affect the quality of an activity or operation will'be taken only with
instruments, tools, gauges, or other measuring devices that are controlled, calibrated,
adjusted and maintained at predetermined intervals to a specified accuracy. The
calibration and maintenance of field equipment and instrumentation will be in accordance
with manufacturer's specifications or applicable test specifications, and shall be
Page 4 of 5
158
AUG 30 '82 iB:2~ RR YORK ~EG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 81905?236026 P.15727
documented in the Daily Activity or Site Safety and Health Logbooks. The calibi'ation
program described in the manufactures recommendations will be. followed for all
instruments requiring calibration.
preventive maintenance Programs will, at a minimum, be established for equipment that
would otherwise be subject to breakdown, when the breakdown CouJld lead to safety
h~z_~rds, environmental contamination, or loss of completeness and accuracy in data. The
program will include a schedule of the important preventative maintenance tasks that will
be carried out to minimize downtime of measurement systems, and a list of any critical
spare parts that need to be on hand to minimize downtime.
Principal Investigator
Derrick Finn, P.En~.
Derrick Finn is a Professional Engineer with over 30 years of experience and is the
President of Finn Projects, a company ti, mt provides Facilit/es Management, Energy
Management and Project Management.
Derrick's extensive experience in the hospitality industry, includes:
~ ' Vice President of Construct/on for College Park in charge of the 600 mom
addition to the Delta Chelsea Inn
~ AssistantProject Manager.for the construction oft. he Pan. Pacific Vancouver
Hotel "
~ Hospitality Action Group Manager for Natural P,.esources Canada's F. aergy
Innovators Initiative, working with the major hotel and restaurant chains
g Development the energy efficiency design guidelines for restaurants'for Natural
Resources Canada's new Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP)
~ Energy audits of restaurants
~ Development and testing of a ventilation solution for environmental tobacco
smoke in restaurants and bars.
g Management of the maintenance program for a chain of hotels
~ Project management of the refurbishing and capital projects for a number of hotels
g Condition audits of hotels
g Energy audits of hotels
g Utility billing analysis and energy monitoring and tracking for hotels
~ Development of hotel maintenance management manuals for hotel chains
Page 5 of 5
159
AUG 38 '02 !6:23 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 81905?235025 P.16×27
166 ,. I
Phoenix OHC, Inc.
Consultanls b~ Occupadona! and Envlronmenlal I-le~llh
Fo~ma~y C~6~aar.P~.gm t"a.~lma~ Que~a'~ u~h~'t,,ily
Cotmcil Attachment 2
Ct-,4o- c..,2
a37 Princess SL. Suke.~00
Kingston, ON Canada KTL ~¢a
Tel {613} S44~045
Fax (G13,1 ~44-310~
mailephoenix.<~c.on.ca
REVIEW OF
"PROTOCOL FOR THE TESTING OF TIEE EFFECTIVENF. SS
OF A VENTILATION SYSTEM IN A RESTA~
SUBMITTED BY: Ugis Bickis MP~g, PhD, C[H, ROI/
ON': 2002.08.28
AS RBQUBSTBD BY: Dr. lC Helena Jaczek, York Region
la,]~ ]~o.: 5381
Summary
A Canadiau a~d au Onuuio hospitality association have collec~ively proposed that an air cluality
evaluation be .-~=talc~ to compare the levels ofcnvh'onmental tobacco smoke in the non-smoMng
~ecfions of restaurants in York Region. The inteat is to m~ak~ a d~te~tion as to the relative
etT-eetiveness o£12~e ~eive m.ea=s o£controlfi,~, the ·
· resp ' '., emissionsproduc~in',hcirsmokiagstctions.
A protocol for conducting this ev~u~l:ien has been reviewed, with the conclusion that it will not
acldmss thc purl~ose.
160
2631
TO 819057236026
~ackground
The Canadian Restam,-mt and Foo~a'vices
~d Motel ~ciafion (O~) ~ve ~ll~fively pmpo~ to ~ ~o~ M~c~ of Y~
· a ~ ~ q~ project bc ~d~ ~s would be a compare ~d~a~vc ~~ of
~vko~cn~ to~acco ~oke ~nc~afions in tM non-ao~g ~o~ of ~o (~if~
r~~. ~ one, ~o~g is con~
co=e~on~ m~p~ by-hw, ~d ~ ~ o~= k is not. A ~1 for ~d~ ~ ~oj~
~ b~ p~ ~ Fi~- Proj~
r~o~ ~ =~ ~ prow~l in qu~on.
The purpose'at'the proposed "test'; as described in a 2002.07.30 letter from the CRFA, is to compare
thc "air quality" (specifically, in tea'ms af env/ronmental tobacco smoke - BTS) in the non-smok/ng
section ora rcslaurant equipped wkh an "energy r~covcry v~tilat/on" (t/I~V) system wa'Iii that ~
thc non-smoking section of a restaurant which has an ~ designated smoking zoom (DSR.)
installed as speci/ied in t~e cu~, ~.,t York Region No-Smoking By-law.":
The protoCOl itselfstat~s the object of the excmi.~ as being to deterrni-e if the air quality at tile test
site can be "made comparable" to r. hat in '~r¢~lareA non-srnoMng fadlit/~s".
Ow. rail, then, the intent aFpeazs to be to provide d~e, that can serve as a basis for co~lucling whether
an equ/vge'nt level of control over BTS can be ach/eyed by me~ of BRV and DIIR:
a) in the two specific f'acilities undergoing evaluat/on
b) in E2.V- and DSR- equipped faciliti~, §enezally.:
Thc purpose ofT. his r~port is Io review the protocol with respect to its likely yield o£data that could
serve as ~he basis for a conclusion regard/ng this equ/valency.
Con~uItant~ in Occupational and £nvironmental ~ealth 2
161
Principles oi* coutrol
h would be u.s~-ul ~ fi.,zt clarify a few aspecr.s o£build~g vc~lilat~on, since it appearz float ~roe ~
principles n'~y have been ob~ed by various technical terms, which are not always uscd
consistently ill rile cont~ of this issue.
For cxample, thc Ira-mx t~I~.V and HRV (heat
~t~~ly, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, 200I.
o~ ~s~ ~ ~e ~nt~ o~ ~e tob~ ~oke i~ in the T~ ~ ~c ~V / ~V
· s~u~on noilly made is ~t ~ ~V ~o~g~ ~y h~ (~ ~ ~y '~t ~c~') aow~
~p~blc s~s, wh~e~ ~ ~V a~ ~c~ges h~
phy~c~ly ~f~ be~ ~e outbo~d
~uipm~t ~ ~e po~fi~ ~ s~ly ~f~
~c pub, ~, ~e~ of co--on ~ r~o~dlF
A more ftmdamcn~ issue is that the features o£cner~ recovcry (I~I~.V/HRV) and those that control
rnbacco smoke by/ncorp, orating the dedgn fcatures ofocmtainment (DSR.) are seem/n~Iy regarded
(e.g. by thc proponents) as mutually exclusive features, h fact, they are not This dichowm/za6on
may well confese a clear discussion of:he issues, and the desi~l / in--on of test protocols.
Various public heaI?.h officials' have expressed strong conceims about thc usc of ventilation as'an
al~'malive U~ an ou~ght bamlint of smoking in public spaces. A dis6naion needs ri, bc made
between d~c vcnlilarion approach typically uscd ~ provide comfort and ~l~at used for ccnuminant
con,roi.
Thc former l~OCeSs (sometimes ce, treed "Eeneral vcntila6on") is comprised largely ofair temperinff
(healing / coolh~) and exchange, by means of equipmc~ co. mmonly l~£e..rcnced az healin§,
Yeakins, D Firm, BA Tomld~ & MI' ~c, 2001. RcS. Tox. & Ph,,i~ 34;213-
Dr. I~rur, lunc 28, 1999 mcr~o ~o Board o£Hcalth, as p0stcd m OCAT web-si~¢
Phoenix OHC. Inc. Coa. rultant, s in Occupational and Envirom'neouaI Health
3
162
RUG 38 '02 1B:24 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI985 895 263! TO 8190S723S02~
P. 1
CL.- c.{.o -o
vmtfla~D and ah'-co-ditioning (i.e. FfVAC) system~. There ~ typically extm-~ive -,ixi~g of the dr
witMn thc occupiod ~ace, and exhausted air is usu,zLly largely returned to the spa:c, once
h~atc~l/coolcd/fil~-ed; som~ outdoor ("dilu'don") air is added mechani~y and/or pasdve]y.
Convc'~ely, a '.'er~a~on ~5~'~em that is intended to control the l~vels of (and/or exlmsure~ lo)
~maminanr~ is chaz~t~d by co~ent of the source, e~h~ of thc conlaminants a~
locally a~ feas~Ie, and ~ clirecte~ ~Iow of ah- from a clea~ zonepa,:t the occupm~s berate picking u~
the cc~tamiu~l~ znd discharging them ou~doorL wit.~ut any remm of the co~,,, i,,,,,,~ ah'back to
the occupied ~pace.
~learly, aD,lB, is a~ example ora system that cIemo~,rates ~is ~n~le. ~e by-law d~cn~ ~e
- phony ~ ~m ~e r~d~ of~e o~upied sp~e (~closed by ~ ~ c~
~ ~o~ clos~ ~t w~ ~ for ~s / ~)
~~ at a nega~ ~ ~ r~ to ~e ~t of~e o~icd
cap~i~ of~ room)?
According/y, measures d~et parallel these should 1~ succe, s~eul on a commensumu~ basis. However,
163
HUb dY '02 15:~4 FR YORK REG HERLTH SERU[905 895 ~65i TO
the proponent's premise appear~* to be ~hat ETS can be colored (i.~. ov~ c~m~U~
~e ~ ~e ~ is ~o~ Comp~e ~y~s ~ ~~ ~ b~nE the ~V, w~ch (~
~m~t~ ~I~ of v~fil~on) not ~d ~ bc ~~. h ~ ~ ~v~ g~
ov~look~ (~, ~ 1~ ~~t~ ~ ~c ~m ~ ~ ~epub ~ ~ abov~~ ~
byl~= of~a ad to~. It b t~ f~ (al~ ~ lin~ of~t ~ ~d ~ a DSR) ~t
wotd 1~ Eo i~v~ consol ov~ ETS, ~{g ~t ~6~ ~o{ d~g ~t a~h ~l
i= mind The ~ ~t ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~V ~ ~dd~ md wo~d ~y ~mRrom~e ~c
A more appropriate phrasin~ of ~he question to be addressed in ~ project,tory be somethin~ ~
"Can the ETS-rela~ed air ~,~)!~y in non-smoking areas of facilities tha~ have smoking that is not
confined to DSI~ (as preen'bed) be made comparable to that in facilities in wh/uh all smoking
confined to DSI~s?" However, it is not clear from the protocol exactly what facility variables arc to
no site / system sp~--ffl=s for ~he ]ocaifons proposed were included in ~he protocol
.Teal'ins e~ al, 2001
Phoenix OI-IC..rna
RUG 2a '02 15:00
C. on~u/tan~ in Occapaliomrl and Environmental Health
i 6t3 .?,44 71104
5
Assessment Protocol
q o -02_
/-%
~jUUl/Ul~
17i
Two ve~ impcrrtarn principles have not been addressezl in the protocol
1. samples (e.g. oft. he two typ~s of es~abli.~r-~nt under cor~icl~ration) must be represeafafive of
what they arc purportexl to represent (qualitatively, quantitatively and temporally). How
monitori~ locations are selected, even within e~h facility, is impollant fo~ a valid cx~parison.
2. the air qualitypa.,-ameters assessed must be s~tfficiently dis~_'mina~g (e.g. bas~,d on facto~ such
as s~r~itivity, spedficity, e,~.) to legit/match/sca'vt as a comparative basis £or relative levels o{'
ETS, D~/id~cies in ~ respect would pred/spose the test o~tcorne towards the "null
hypothcxis'; i.e. that there is no dgni/ican, t difference baw~ the two sites, or in otb= words,
that the air quality is comparable (irrespective of the actual situat/ar0.
There ar~ also, all the other req~ents of a valid ~valuafion of this namr/, such as acmrac,/(as
determin~ by calibration), precision (as dem'm/n~l by reproducibili~), etc. However, these are
secondary to the two key points, show.
~ Table 1 of the pro.col, fhe da~a fizz ar~ ~o be coll~-'ted, dugng a 5 - 7 hour period ova'
separate even/nFs in each of the f~ur in.sta~ces~ am indi=ated below. The fuzt thre~ pm-am~ (to
be u.s~l as the sole basis for the assessment of air quality, ETS levels and ventilation
are to be monitored conti~uously, and ~¢ last two counied once per hour.
I I co, i co
Te~t sitc - l:,re.-intaw~nfion
- pos~-in~erven~ion, day 1
- post-int~rventioa, day 2
Control site
A numb= 9f d~ciencics ar~ discus$~cl in tu~~*.
Phoenix O~C, Inc.
Conauttants in Occupational and Environmental I-~ealth
165
6
YORK REI~ H~.F-ILtH SERUi905 895 ~531 IU ld&~idJ'K-.'.Jb~ld/~,
Ui~ ~ OiU~ £~Ur, I~I~ U%, IHb,
Sites assessed
In the protocol, these ar~ t~,med the "~est" and "co=col" skcs. A"control" site in an ovaluation such
az this I~eeds to be reprgser~t~ive o7"sir~ equipped with D~R.s that are conslztlc~,d arid ol~eraled in
z rni~er that is coz~isteat with the intent of ~e no smoking by-law. Azui, iii z scienfilic study, a
co=trolls identical to ~he rest item i= every re~ect ~XCgl~tiag thc factor heine
Any one site equipped with a D$1~. may hive circumstances which make it inappropriate as a
"control" far axry such air quality determinalion. This may have to do with the -~rnve ofits co,~¥~E
proc=ss~s, ~hc charactcri.stics ofi~ _~_-,),_ lent (outdoor) air quality, or the volume, of the occupied space
(~.g. high vcrsus low cciling& or occupancy density). Fmthermor&, there may be me~eorolotgcal
variables rhnr make it inappropriate to present the results from an m-aluation as bein~ repres~ta~ve
oft. hose determined at another time, even in fl~¢ sm~e facility.
For ct. ample, the by-law indicates ~at dr must be exlmusted f. roma DSP, "no less than three (~)
metres ~om any air intake or building opeging". However, there may well be DSRs in which
exhausted air is nevertheless partially drawn back in to the a/r supply system of/he fac/lity, either
typically or under cert~i~ weather conditions. Or, the oul:sicle air intakes may be situated so as to
entra/n street=level c,m~ts (from vehicn!~,r traffic, or smokers congregating outdoors). The air
quality in the non-.~oldr,g ar~(~) in these cases would not be exemplary of what/he by-hw/s
kncuding to accomplish.
Accordingly, the sclcction ofthe control sitcs must be by cons~x~sus ('revolving/hose cognisant of
the fac/lifies in quest/on) if/he results are to be r~levant. And, there clearly mua't be more than one
day of evaluation, ifa legitimate comparison is to be made (i.e. the inherent variability in each
of values is one :facU)r thax nexis to be considered/n d~ermln;ng if there is a sign/ficant difl'ct, encc,
or not). If tbm:c is an ia~cnt to cxtrapolat¢ beyond thc two specific sites. ~en more locations will
have to be assessed, given the Iow likeN, hood of controlling for all vadabI~s. Thc actual numbcr of
sites assessed, and the days of testing ax ca~ must ~compa.ss the range of£actors )bm, may impact
on the levels of'ETS.
Ftu-ther, the placement of the monitoring equipment within each of the sites can also significantly
.Phoe~iz OHC. ~c.
Con~ultavg. s i~ Occupational and £nvivonmental HeaIth.
7
166
~UG 2a-'02 16:81 1'~13 5a,4 31~ PAGE.0B
RUG 30 '02 26:25 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2631 TO 81905?238028
173
affe.~t th~ ou~:om~. For a~'aple, particul~ly in a hdliw h w~ah ~o~g ~ not ~.s.~ to a
DS~ k wo~d ~o~ be ~ec~ ~t ~c wo~ be ~ ~~g c~o~~ ~t of
~S compo~ ~ h~g di~ ~m ~ di~ ~e of i-flu~ce of a cl~ ~ s~
· ~. A~~y, ff m~pI~ lo~o~ ~ not ~ be ~ wi~ e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bc
~p~c m ~ ~ly ~ w~~ ~ ~ may b~ o~ by ~ p~ ~ ~plo~ of~h
167
ETS indicator
Tobacco smoke i~ ~highly co~l~ and variable n~.~.u-e, h terms oFR'TS, there is'eve~ a difference
from the .~ame ~ga~ette J~ the composition betweea mzim~ca~ -~moke ('~a/ed by the us~) .nd
sides~reazn smoke (tha~ l~roduc~ w~Ie the cigarette is ]it, but wi~out i~hala~ion by thc us~).
The protocol would evaluam only three pzi, amc~czs o£dr quality/BTS / ventih~on ~ven~s:
carbon diorJd~ (COD, carbo~ monde (CO) ~i re~,h'abl~ susp~d~ padicuhte (R~).
,~d~ou~ all flu'ee o£rl~e~:_ e are emi~ed by burning tobacco, th~ are not sumd~tly discrlm~r~g
to serve as an appropriate index of ~l'S concc, ntr~om for thc purposes of the study as outlined.
Both qualitative and quantitative co~-~ideratiolls apply.
Thcr~ arc many non-tobacco sources of each of the three proposal t~t substanc~ md they may
(accordingly) be "red honings' (Lc. not a valid indicator of the presence of ETS). In faci,
protocol afffums that COz is useful as an index of occupancy and "how well the ventilation
is worMn~". However, that is only with respect to ventihtion in terms of a facility's, human
occ~ancy (with exhalation as thc main source), and not wkh rcspcc~ to envkonmenml tobacco
smoke. Hcdgc er aZ, 1994I~ dct~rml-ed dx aitbornc ftctorst, ovcr 212 locatioz~s in 27
buildings repr~cnt~g five diffcren~ smoking policies. They fottud ~a~ smoking t~olicy (e.g. w~
prohibited in 11~ building, or pertained in specified modes) does not have an overall effect on
levels of carbon monoxide or dioxide in open areas.
Although elevations in the airborne concentralions of these mat~i~ cou/dbe associaud wi~ the
accumula~on of ET~, it would not bc to a large dc~rc~ The r~nge in mcan CO or CO: ~ hi
smoM. ug / non-smok/ng occupancics is a small factorI~, relative to the range in tobacco-specific
~ Ann. Occ. Hyg. 38("3):2~$-
"They also measured levels af formaldehyde, :espirable p~'ticulam mawr (by microbahnce), tLh~violgtpartic~l~z
matter, and nico6mc, fmdhg ~i~ificant diffcrcnc~ in thc ca~= of thc ht~cr thr~c. Many other tobacco.specific
of ETS have b~a evuluamd by olhezs.
ss I-Icdgc ed ~ fottmi ~ di~e~euce of only 1 ppm ;- ~h¢ ~ CO level, whea compari~ ~ ~ ao~-smokia~
are~; such a difference would no~ be iaemitled accerSiz~ to this protocol :~gnkins er n]~ 2001 $~owcd a ra~e of 4~$
1734 ppm CO~ (a f~ctor o1'3.7; oI, if ~lju$1ing for a nomiz~ ou~o~ co~;~tllratio- of 370 ppm, ~. ~ of 14). l~ur,
Pho~ix OHC. Inc.
Con. wh~mt~ ~n Occupational and En~ironmzntaf Healr~
1. 6113 544 '~lg4 I~G~.
AUG 39 '82 16:25 FR YORK REG HEALTH SERUI905 895 2531 TO 81985?236825
P, 25/27
mar~ ot'~T$ such as nicot~c~.
175
By vixtuc of thc sevewal additional sources ofth~$c contmnizmut$
le~, ~ec/fie markers for ElS in the proposei study, a,~ in oEfice
lq. espirable suspended particulate (RSP) has been widely used as an ETS marker, but knowledge oF
~he co~respondin§ ou~oor level, and cons/detain of'non-~l~ i~S~P (¢.~ from v~ous cooM~
processes in restaurant occupmcies) is finpaztant. In thc study, ASP/s to bc dc-tcrmi~ed with
time monitor that operates on a fight-scattering principle. The optical properti~ of thc airborne
particuls'm be;_ng monitored, such as the sizes, shapes and colou.m of the particle% would ]:av~ a
significant impact onzhe instrummt :v. sponse. The protocol advises that an "ETS cah'bration fact°r''
adjustment is to be used (which would no.,,ally indicate that many gravimetrica~-det~mined
levels would be t,r.e, ord~ in parallel), but also d~scribes ara~aal calibx~,fion (presumably
by the manufacturer, with the $1amdani "road duse'). It mo, be that the i~teat is to use the fao. or
rq:orted in 3'ink-ins et al; this wouM redur, e by a ~ctor ora, the ,carol madiags, l-lowev~, it amst
b¢,eanphasized r. kat RSP is not spe, cif~ to ~TS. Th~ cah~bratia: factor, in view ofthe
o£'RSP" and the variety ofpotemially contributing $ouzoe, (each with differe:at Ola~cal
would need to be determined in each case o~1 a site-$peoific basis, if there is to be a quantitative
~ampari$or~ between sites.
Ac, co'tdhgly, the selection of these materials for the test as outlined is likely to lead m a coacl~ioa
of no significant differenc~ bctwccu ~e two types of facilities bcing t~t~d, despit~ difl'e~acc$ ia thc
effectiveness of BTS control, and in levels of ETS actuallypresent.
the average level of CO: in each of the.non..smoking facilities was higher than the average in the pub, evee oe t~se
night~ wkcrc thc mz~.ing see~ w~ incmlaorat¢d in thc mea~tm~cz~t~: tl~s of i~cl~ ~hould dc:mom~r~m thc
irrelevance of CO: ~n th~, test. CO: is useful only as a meaxare ofg~ degree of air exchange, relative to the desree of
occupz~y.
is Nicotine expos-arm in occuparior~ settings h~ve becu ~o~ ~ ~g ~om l~s ~ = d~ ~ ~ 0.05
u~m:, to ~b ~ ~ ~50 u~, ora ~e of 4 ord~ ofm~ (Lc. I000 x). A~r~, ~t ~ ~ ~ ·
~ it :ho~d be z~?i~ed ~t ~e h~ oJ~cm~ r~po~e ~ ~ ~y be ~ semi, ye ~ ~cal ~
P;'~er~ OHC. Inc
Consultant~. in Occupational and ~nvironmentai Health
10
Da~ ~n~l~sis
Section 'vi of the protocol (filled "]Data ValidationN~ificatioa") describes how the "vaLidation
process will include checks for inte=~ consistency, checks for ~ttal enors, and checks for
ctu~lity control. Bvatu~tion ofth~s¢ cfiteri~ ["... to provide a specked level of assurance ..."] wilt
/nvolv~ a r~vicw of.'
Msmzmcnt calibra6o~s
R.~producibility of replicate analyzes
Detection Limits
Data reporting completeness
Accuracy ofdat~ resulm calct~om
Bva1~on of q~&it7 comtro! samples."
These poJats, as well the subsequent sectica VI~ ad~ bulk to thelm'otocol without relevance and/or
value-added. For ~araple, detection limits etc. must be a fundamental part ofth~ pre-pmjecz work-
up. It doe~ not appear ~at there will be any replicate ~malyses, nor that any on-site calibration will
a~u~lly bc undm~ak~n (i.e. cah'brafion annually b cited for all fl~rcc ioztmmcnm).
Th ere is no inctica~on of how the propouemt xvlll analy~e ~e ~ - ~ ~ ~ q~ p~e~ ~
- av~g~ ov~ ~e ho~ ~~7
- ~ a ~mpod~?
- ~p~ ofp~~ ~y W~t~?
- ~ (~y) S0% of ~ wd~s ~o~t w ~
- con~d~ in ~s of 95~ p=c~51e v~a= or= ~e s~E p~od?
- n~~ ~ ~e ~ ofp~?
~t ~ be co~i~ed to be ~i~fmt t~c~ ad what ~ t~ ~ of te Foto~l ~
ii~ ~?
The protocol states ",At the completion of',hc data validation pror..c~ lh¢ reviewer will prepar~ a
sttmrnary of the re. suits and specify thc uses fo: which the data is suitable."
Like so maz~y othsr factors, this needs to be established bcfo:¢ the fact.
Phozr~ OHC. I~c.
Consultant~ in Occupational and ~nvironmental ]-fealtlt 1I
170
Conclusions
177
It is the conclusion of this reviewer that the Imposed testh~ will not result/n dam tha~ can be used
m c~nclude whether the two facilflies in which the ~sessme~ts were conducled have an equivalenI
degree of contro! ovcr enviror, mcnml tobacco ,unokc. The extrapolatic~ ofttm ~,,,,~nEs to other
facilities would be c~en more problematic.
A. matter to be cladjcd by the propan~t is the specific comparison that is int~decI to be made,
and/~ the facility differen--e(s) that ere to be evalusied. In/nher words, there should be an
elaboration of one specific question, with as much detail provided as nece. ssa~ to makc it clear.
could then b~ a Io~ical ba,~ for a delineaxion of the i~;pes end numbers of facilities tl~ should be
included, cbc mos~ approve ~$ mark.s to bo uscd and ?he mariner of their detcnninat/on, as well
as all o£th¢ other components ora more considered protocol.
Phoenix OHC. Inc. Conmd. tanm in Occupational a~d ff. nvironme~tal Health
I2
~t,~ 2~ ' 02 16: 02
171 ~ $~3~t4 3i04 ~flaE.~3
** TOTAL PAGE.2? **
APPENDIX D
178
-2002
BY-LAW NUMBER ,,
OF
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
being a by-law to regulate smoking in public places and in the workplace
WHEREAS research has proven the adverse effects and risks to health posed by second-hand
tobacco smoke (exhaled smoke and smoke from idling cigarettes, cigars or pipes);
AND WHEREAS second-hand tobacco smoke is a serious health hazard to inhabitants and
workers within the Region;
AND WHEREAS second-hand tobacco smoke is a public nuisance because of its irritating and
discomforting properties;
AND WHEREAS subsection 213(2) of the MunicipalAct, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, as amended
(the "Municipal Act') authorizes the council of a local municipality to pass a by-lawregulating the
smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces within the municipality and designating
public places or workplaces or classes or parts of such places in which smoking tobacco or
holding lighted tobacco is prohibited;
AND WHEREAS subsection 213(14) of the Municipal Act provides that a regional municipality
may exercise the powers under subsection 213(2) if a majority of the councils of the area
municipalities within the regional municipality approve the exercise of such powers;
AND WHEREAS a majority of the councils of the area municipalities in the Regional
Municipality of Durham have requested that Regional Council pass a by-law regulating the
smoking of tobacco in public places and workplaces within the Regional Municipality of Durham;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Regional Municipality of Durham enacts as follows:
Definitions
1. In this by-law,
(a) "ashtray" means a receptacle of any type being used for tobacco ashes and for
cigar and cigarette butts;
(b)
"bar" means an establishment licensed by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of
Ontario where persons under 19 years of age are not permitted to enter, either as
a patron or as an employee;
(c)
(d)
"billiard hail" means any building, structure or premises at which billiard or pool
tables are made available for use by the public;
"bingo hall" means any building, structure or premises where bingo events are
conducted;
172
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(k)
(I)
(m)
"casino" means a place which is kept for the purpose of playing a lottery scheme
conducted and managed by the Ontario Casino Corporation under the authority of
paragraph 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Code;
"common area" means any indoor area of a building or structure that is open to
the public for the purpose of access and includes elevators, escalators, corridors,
stairways, passageways, hallways, foyers, parking garages, and space for the
receiving or greeting of customers, clients or other persons;
"designated smoking room" means a room within a building or structure or part
thereof in which smoking is permitted and that,
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
is completely enclosed on all sides and not required by any person for a
thoroughfare;
is equipped with a separate ventilation system that maintains a minimum
ventilation rate of thirty (30) litres per second per person, based on
maximum occupancy load, that is ventilated directly to the outside air and
exhausted at a rate of at least one hundred and ten percent (110%) of
supply, with any exhaust, no less than three (3) metres from any air intake
or building opening;
does not occupy more than fifty percent (50%) of the occupiable public
space within the building or structure or part thereof; and
is approved in accordance with the terms and provisions of this By-law by
an inspector appointed by the Medical Officer of Health;
"employee" means a person who performs any work for or supplies any service to
an employer with or without compensation and includes a volunteer but does not
include a person who is a member of a private club;
employer" means a person who, as an owner, manager, contractor,
superintendent, or overseer of any activity, business, work, trade, occupation or
profession, has control over or direction of, or is indirectly or directly responsible
for, the employment or services of an employee;
"enclosed" means closed in by a roof or ceiling and walls with an appropriate
opening or openings for ingress or egress, provided that such openings are kept
closed when not in use for such ingress or egress;
"inspector" means a person appointed by the Region to enforce this by-law;
"municipal building" means any building or structure owned, leased, controlled or
used by the Region or any area municipality in the Region including libraries,
community centres and recreational facilities;
"no-smoking sign" means a sign at least 10 centimetres in diameter showing an
illustration of a black, lit cigarette on a white circle surrounded by a red border with
a width equal to one tenth of the diameter, with a red diagonal stroke of the same
width crossing over the cigarette from the upper left to the lower portion of the
circle;
2
173
(n)
(o)
(P)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
(v)
(w)
(x)
"private club" means a 'not for profit corporate establishment that operates solely
for the benefit and pleasure of its members, that directs its publicity and
advertisements to its members, and has passed by-laws regulating the admission
of persons and the conditions of membership, the fees and dues of members, the
issue of memberships cards, the suspension and termination of memberships, the
qualification of and remuneration of directors, the time for and the manner of
electing directors and the time, place and notice to be given for the holding of
meetings of the members and of the board of directors.
"proprietor" includes the person or persons who own, occupy, operate,, maintain,
manage, control or direct the activities carried on within any premises referred to in
this by-law;
"public place" means the whole or part of an indoor area of any place that is open
to the public or to which the public has access by right, permission or invitation,
express or implied, whether by payment of money or not, and whether publicly or
privately owned and includes, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the
indoor area of those places designated as public places in section 2 of this by-law
but does not include a private club;
"public transport vehicle" means any vehicle used for transporting the public and
includes a bus and a passenger vehicle used for hire such as a taxi or limousine;
"racetrack" means a horse racing track operated under the authority of a licence
issued under the Racing Commission Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c.20, as amended.
"recreational facility" includes an arena, swimming pool, concert hall, theatre,
auditorium, gymnasium, museum and art gallery;
"Region" means the geographic area of the Regional Munidpality of Durham or
The Regional Municipality of Durham acting as a body corporate, as the context
requires;
"restaurant" means an establishment engaged in the sale and service of food or
drink or both food and drink to the public for consumption on the premises but does
not include a bar;
"service line" means an indoor line of two or more persons providing, receiving, or
awaiting service of any kind, regardless of whether or not such service involves the
exchange of money, including but not limited to sales services, provision of
information, transactions or advice and transfers of money or goods;
"smoke or smoking" includes the carrying or holding of a lighted cigar, cigarette,
pipe or any other lighted smoking equipment, but does not include the carrying or
holding of any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other lighted smoking equipment
that is being used in a stage production or theatrical performance;
"theatre" means any building or part of a building intended for the screening and
viewing of motion pictures or the production and staging of public performances of
culture, musical or dramatic entertainment; and
174 3
(y) "workplace" means a building or structure or part thereof in which one or more
employees work, including amenity areas, corridors, eating areas, elevators,
entrances, escalators, exits, foyers, hallways, laundry rooms, lobbies, lounges,
meeting rooms, parking garages, reception areas, stairways and washrooms, and
includes a public transport vehicle and any other vehicle in which an employee
works but does not include a private dwelling.
Public Places
The following places are designated as public places for purposes of this by-law:
(a) those places set out in subsection 9(1) of the Tobacco ControlAct, S.O. 1994,
c. 10;
(b) common area;
(c) public washroom;
(d) municipal building;
(e) funeral home;
(f) racetrack;
(g) casino;
(h) bingo hall;
(i) billiard hall;
(j) bowling alley;
(k) restaurant;
(I) bar;
(m) recreational facility;
(n) service line; and
(o) public transport vehicle.
Except as set out below in sections 4, 5, 6 and 7, no person shall smoke in a public.
place.
The proprietor of a bingo hall may establish a designated smoking room no greater in
size than fifty percent (50%) of the occupiable public space of the premises.
The proprietor of a casino may establish a designated smoking room no greater in size
than fifty percent (50%) of the occupiable public space of the premises.
Smokinq in
175
The proprietor of a racetrack may establish a designated smoking room no greater than
fifty percent (50%) of the occupiable public space of the premises.
The prohibitions and regulations in this By-law shall not apply to private clubs during
such time periods when such private clubs are closed to members of the public.
Subject to sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 above, no person shall place an ashtray for the use of
smokers in a public place.
Subject to sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 above, no proprietor shall permit a person to smoke in a
public place.
10.
Subject to sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 above, no proprietor shall permit a person to place an
ashtray for the use of smokers in a public place.
Smoking in Workplaces
11. No person shall smoke in an enclosed workplace.
12. No person shall place an ashtray for the use of smokers in an enclosed workplace.
13. No employer shall permit a person to smoke in an enclosed workplace.
14.
No employer shall permit a person to place an ashtray for the use of smokers in an
enclosed workplace.
Si.qns
15.
The proprietor of a public place shall ensure that such public place is posted with no-
smoking signs in a conspicuous manner at each entrance to the public place to indicate
that smoking is prohibited.
16.
Every employer shall ensure that the enclosed workplace is posted with no-smoking
signs in a conspicuous manner at each entrance to the workplace to indicate that
smoking is prohibited.
Enforcement
17.
The Medical Officer of Health of the Region may, from time to time, appoint inspectors
for the purpose of enforcing this by-law.
'18.
An inspector may, at any reasonable time, enter any public place or workplace (other
than a private dwelling) without warrant or notice for the purpose of determining whether
there is compliance with this by-law.
19.
An inspector may make such examinations, investigations and inquiries as are
necessary to determine whether there is compliance with this by-law.
20.
No person shall hinder, obstruct or interfere with an inspector carrying out an inspection
under this by-law;
176 5
Offence
21. Any person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and
upon conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000.00 exclusive of costs, as
provided in the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, as amended.
Conflict
22. If any provision of this by-law conflicts with any Act, regulation or other by-law, the
provision that is the most restrictive of smoking shall prevail.
Severability
23. If any section of this by-law or parts thereof are found by any Court to be illegal or
beyond the power of the Region to enact, such section or parts thereof shall be deemed
to be severable and all other sections or parts of this by-law shall be deemed to be
separate and independent therefrom and to be enacted as such.
Set Fines
26. Set fines for contraventions of this by-law shall be in accordance with Schedule "A" to
this by-law, attached hereto and forming part of this by-law.
Effective Date
27. This by-law shall come into effect on June 1, 2004.
BY-LAW read a first time this 13th day of November, 2002.
BY-LAW read a second time this 13th day of November, 2002.
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 13th day of November, 2002.
Roger Anderson, Regional Chair
P.M. Madill, Regional Clerk
Smoking By-law 2002
BY-22-01
177
Schedule "A"
SET FINE SCHEDULE
ITEM COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3
Short Form Wording Offence Creating Set Fine
Provision (Includes costs)
1 Smoke tobacco in a prohibited place Sections 3 and 11 $205.00
2 Place ashtray in a prohibited place Sections 8 and 12 $205.00
3 Failure to prohibit persons from Sections 9 and 13 $205.00
smoking in a prohibited place
4 Failure to prohibit persons from placing Sections 10 and 14 $205.00
ashtray in a prohibited place
5 Failure to post No Smoking signs where Sections 15 and 16 $205.00
smoking is prohibited
6 Obstruct inspector Section 20 $205.00
NOTE: the penalty provision for the offences indicated above is Section 21 of the By-law
178
185
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That the draft by-law to appoint two persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 1792
Liverpool Road, and four persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 1210 & 1235 Radom
St., 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 580 Eyer Dr., 1915 Denmar Rd., 1530, 1540, 1625 and 1655
Pickering Parkway, 1525 & 1535 Diefenbaker Court, 1000 & 1400 The Esplanade, 925
Bayly St., 1360 & 1885 Glenanna Road, 1958 & 1975 Rosefield Rd., 1880 & 1890
Valley Farm Rd. and 1650 Kingston Road, be forwarded to Council for approval.
REPORT TO THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Report Number: CL 37-02
Date: November 1, 2002
From: Bruce Taylor
City Clerk
Subject:
Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 1792 Liverpool Road, 1210
& 1235 Radom St., 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 580 Eyer Dr., 1915 Denmar Rd.,
1530, 1540, 1625 and 1655 Pickering Parkway, 1525 & 1535 Diefenbaker
Court, 1000 & 1400 The Esplanade, 925 Bayly St., 1360 & 1885
Glenanna Rd., 1958 & 1975 Rosefield Rd., 1880 & 1890 Valley Farm Rd.
and 1650 Kingston Road.
Recommendation:
That the draft by-law to appoint two persons to enforce the Parking By-law
at 1792 Liverpool Road, and four persons to enforce the Parking By-law at
1210 & 1235 Radom St., 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 580 Eyer Dr., 1915
Denmar Rd., 1530, 1540, 1625 and 1655 Pickering Parkway, 1525 &
1535 Diefenbaker Court, 1000 & 1400 The Esplanade, 925 Bayly St.,
1360 & 1885 Glenanna Rd., 1958 & 1975 Rosefield Rd., 1880 & 1890
Valley Farm Rd. and 1650 Kingston Road, be forwarded to Council for
approval.
Executive Summary: N/A
Financial Implications: None
Background:
Correspondence has been received from Nemesis Security Services Inc. and Group 4
Falck Limited requesting the appointment of persons as By-law Enforcement Officers
for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law at 1792 Liverpool Road, 1210 & 1235
Radom St., 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 580 Eyer Dr., 1915 Denmar Rd., 1530, 1540, 1625
and 1655 Pickering Parkway, 1525 & 1535 Diefenbaker Court, 1000 & 1400 The
Esplanade, 925 Bayly St., 1360 & 1885 Glenanna Rd., 1958 & 1975 Rosefield Rd.,
1880 & 1890 Valley Farm Rd. and 1650 Kingston Road.
Report CL 37-02
Subject: Appointment of By-law Enforcement Officers
Date:
November1,2002
Page 2
Attachments:
Correspondence from Nemesis Security Services Inc.
Correspondence from Group 4 Falck Ltd.
Draft By-law.
Prepared By:
Debbie Kearns
Committee Coordinator
Approved I Endorsed By:
BrUce Taylor
City Clerk
BT:dk
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
T'l~o~as J. O~ti~n, Cl-~f Adm~tive OffiCer
FROM : NEMESIS SECURITY SERVICES INC FAX 140. : 41G 285 0204 Oct. 25 2~2 03:3E~1 Pi
NEMESIS SECURITY
To Secure and Protect Since 1992
;~ CROCK, FORD BOULEVARD. TORONTO, ONTARIO, MfR-3C2
Phone: (416) 285-5233 Fax; (4 t6) 285-0204
Toll Free: 1-888-604-2421
Friday, October 25, 2002
City of Picketing
By-Law office
Picketing Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Picketing, Ontario
L1V-6K7
VIA FAX: 906,-420-9~I1~dM .AIL
Attention: DEBBIE KEARNS= ADMINIST,I~Jt. TION DE,I~
Re: OFFICERS LIST UPDATE
I am kindly requesting that the following Security Officers ~be_.authorlzed. to issue
parking tickets at the Loblaws ~ore, located at 1792 Liverpool Road. I have attached
copies of all their security guard licences (in my previous fax Oct t?102)
Name
FABIO GUg3LIELMI
DIANF DIAZ
Dafl~ of birth
MARCH 20, 1980
JULY 29, 1976
PLF. ASE REMOVE THE FOLLOWING OFFICERS:
DAVID ANNIS
AMIT SHARMA
I thank you for your anticipated co-operation in the above matter. I can be
reached at the above number, extension 206 if you have eny questions or require any
additional information.
Mr. Peter S. Alves
President
:90E 579 8028
REPORT c
From: Group 4 Falck Limited
214 King Street E Oshawa L1H 3V1
Tel: 905-579-8020 Fax: 905-579-8028
October 29, 2002
The Corporation of the Town of Pickering
Councillor's Office
One The Esplanade
Pick,e,ring, Ontado L1V 6K7
Fax: 905-420-05'15
Please be advised the following officer require be authorized to provide bylaw
enforcement at the following Pickering locations
This is in addition to:
1210 Radom
1310 Fieldlight Blvd
580 Eyer
1915 Denmar Rd
1655 Pickering Parkway
DCC # 32
DCC # 51
DCC # 58
DCC # 93/106
1360 Glenanna
1958 Rosefield
1975 Rosefield
1880/1890 Valley Farm Rd.
1525/35 Diefenbaker Court & 1530140 Picketing Parkway
1000/1400 The Esplanade Casitas Millennium
1625 Pickering Parkway
925 Bayly OCC #11 1235 Radom
DCC # 19
DCC #42
DCC # 52
DCC # 60
DCC #107
DCC # 136
DCC # 139
DCC # 152
OCC #2
1650 Kingston Road
1885 Gtenanna Road
/ MattArvisais 033714 Daniel Bassant 036549
{,._Lloyd Steiger 036448 Len Warner 291894
Please advise m~)nce all is in order and tagging can commence.
//
Thank
Bev McCag~Yi~
District Ma~er continued on' page 2
/
Would v'ou please ensure the following officers are noted to provide
service for all facilities on the Bylaw enactment
From: Group 4 Falck Limited
214 King Street E Oshawa L1H 3VI
Tel: 905-579-8020 Fax: 905-579-8028
Name Licence # Name
Matt Arvisais 033714
Daniet Bassant 036549
Pierre Chabot 004471
Joseph DePasquale
Ed Francis
Jen Galo
David Glover
Nick Koitsopoulos 284868
At Lambert
Gilles Levesque 016388
Keith Pearson 255850
Preston Roberts 284495
Rob Rogers 016389
Bob Rombough 000077
Adrian Rozei
Jason Savage
Sear) Stafford
Lloyd Steiger 036448
Len Warner 291894
Jim Wraight 226795
Jennifer Zub 610849
Licence #
Please delete any officers not on this list including.
Paul Power Shawn Stobert
Awaiting your respo~,
Bev McCagherty .~
District Ma nag'er,/~"/
bylaw: Add new bylaw o~cers Request
Peter Lawrence,
Operations Supervisor
THE CORPORATION ~
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for
certain purposes {Parking Regulation - 1792 Liverpool Road,
1210 & 1235 Radom SL, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 580 Eyer Dr., 1915
Denmar Rd., 1530, 1540, 1625 and 1655 PickeHng Parkway, 1525
& 1535 Diefenbaker Court, 1000 & 1400 The Esplanade, 925 Bayly
St., 1360 & 1885 Glenanna Rd., 1958 & 1975 Rosefield Rd., 1880
& 1890 Valley Farm Rd. and 1650 Kingston Road.)
WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(I) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as
amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the
municipality; and
WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(2) of the said Act, municipal by-law enforcement
officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by4aws;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
That the following persons be hereby appointed as municipal law enforcement
officers in and for the City of Picketing I order to ascertain whether the provisions
of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said By-law
and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands
municipally known as:
a) 1792 Liverpool Road, Loblaws Store:
Fabio Guglielmi
Diane Diaz
b)
1210 & 1235 Radom St., 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 580 Eyer Dr., 1915
Denmar Rd., 1530, 1540, 1625 and 1655 Pickering Parkway, 1525 & 1535
Diefenbaker Court, 1000 & 1400 The Esplanade, 925 Bayly St., 1360 &
1885 Glenanna Rd., 1958 & 1975 Rosefieid Rd., 1880 & 1890 Valley
Farm Rd. and 1650 Kingston Road.:
Matt Arvisais
Lloyd Steiger
Daniel Bassant
Len Wamer
The authority granted in section 1 hereto is specifically limited to that set out in
section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time, to exceed the authority set out in
section 1.
These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section l(a) ceasing
to be employees of Nemesis Security Services Inc. or upon Nemesis Secudty
Services Inc. ceasing to be an agent of 1792 Liverpool Road, Loblaws Store, or
in section l(b) ceasing to be employees of Group 4 Falck Ltd. or upon Group 4
Falck Ltd. ceasing to be an agent of 1210 & 1235 Radom St., 1310 Fieldlight
Blvd., 580 Eyer Dr., 1915 Denmar Rd., 1530, 1540, 1625 and 1655 Picketing
Parkway, 1525 & 1535 Diefenbaker Court, 1000 & 1400 The Esplanade, 925
Bayly St., 1360 & 1885 Glenanna Rd., 1958 & 1975 Rosefield Rd., 1880 & 1890
Valley Farm Rd. and 1650 Kingston Road, or upon whichever shall occur first.
By-law Number 5401/98 is hereby deleted and By-law Number 6001/02 is hereby
amended by deleting David Annis and Amit Sharma.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 18t~ day of
November, 2002.
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk