Loading...
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