Board of Health Beware!
On January 21, 2010 the Board of Health (BoH) passed motions requesting information from the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) on compliance with a number of measures dealing with noise and other polluting features of the
The Board’s action may also be a response to the TPA’s earlier effort to show that they were complying with the request from
On November 13, 2009, Ken Lundy, Director,
In an earlier Staff Report dated October 27, 2009, to the BoH, Dr. McKeown’s wrote the following paragraphs.
“Starting in February 2009, Toronto Public Health staff tried to obtain information from the
The questions directed to TCCA by email and letter mail included general questions about whether the TCCA has an environmental plan or strategy and the types of actions that TCCA takes to promote a healthy environment at or near the airport facility. Specific questions about air quality asked whether any specific features of the airport design or operational practises promote better air quality, whether the TCCA does any onsite ambient air monitoring, and whether leaded airplane fuel is still in use at TCCA.
Requests to provide information, or to schedule a call or visit to obtain information about new environmental initiatives at the airport were not answered. A letter from the Medical Officer of Health dated June 2009 requesting information from the airport did not produce a response.”
After 8 ½ months after the Toronto Public Health staff’s first requested information and 4 ½ months after ignoring Dr. Mckeown’s June letter, Mr. Lundy responded.
Mr. Lundy’s letter of compliance is dated November 13, 2009, 4 ½ months after Dr. McKeown’s June letter and five days before the meeting that the TPA didn’t attend.
The lack of attendance at the BoH meeting, the date of the compliance letter and its contents are instructive of the regard that the TPA holds of the community of which it claims to be a part.
First, aside from taking nine months to acknowledge initial requests for information on air quality, the TPA was able to submit only seven and nine-year-old data from previous consultants. Unlike the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) as evidenced by their mitigation measures, the TPA has failed to consider the need for mitigation three years after the introduction of a busy commercial airline and failed to keep its information current.
Second, the TPA reported that it has engaged Jacobs Consultancy to undertake “a new comprehensive air quality study.” Jacobs Consultancy is the same firm that the TPA hired to address the airport’s ambient noise problem.
The following statement refers to the Jacob Consultancy’s role in examination of the noise problem and a meeting held 14 months ago.
“On November 25, 2008, representatives of the residential community attended a presentation by Jacobs Consultancy and the TPA which described the study goals, objectives and process. This meeting was the first step in an ongoing community consultation that will include further meetings and introduce other forums for community feedback.” The web page also states, “The stated purpose of the meeting was to “establish an On-going Noise Management Program to Minimize Noise Impacts Resulting from the Airport.”
Full information is here. http://www.torontoport.com/airport_NMprogram_a.asp
The next meeting was held on February 18, 2009.
See http://www.torontoport.com/airport_NMprogram_b.asp. This page makes two interesting points. It states, “In the coming weeks, a third community consultation meeting will be scheduled to report on the results of noise monitoring data collection, assess various strategies to reduce ambient noise at the TCCA, answer questions and solicit feedback.” It also refers to the Jacobs Consultancy presentation that may be accessed here. http://www.torontoport.com/TCCA_forms/TCCA-AdvisoryMtg_1-V5-20090218.pdf.
The Jacobs Consultancy presentation promised the following: Changes to Noise Reporting
- Changes to noise reporting form (More detailed info for improved analysis).
- Written or Email response within 96 hrs.
- Noise reference materials on website and printed media for better public understanding.
- Improved monthly and annual summary of noise related events.
- Discuss and resolve specific noise related events on a quarterly basis.
Eleven months later and the Noise Report Form remains the same contrary to the #1 claim above. See http://www.torontoport.com/Airport_CForm.asp.
Contrary to claim #4, the latest Noise Report Monthly Summary is for August 2009. See http://www.torontoport.com/Airport_Nsummary.asp.
As for the other claims, there is no evidence that the TPA ever took any action on them.
The TPA and Jacobs Consultancy convened a third meeting, originally scheduled for June 10, 2009, on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, five months after a third meeting in the coming weeks was promised. As material for the meeting was delivered with insufficient lead time, a motion was passed to require that all information and the agenda for future meetings be delivered at least two weeks in advance of the meeting.
Jacobs Consultancy presented 15 noise mitigation recommendations at the July 14 meeting. The TPA has followed up on one recommendation and widely publicized it: the noise barrier that will cost $660,000. The new TPA CEO, in a letter to Community AIR Chair Brian Iler posted on the TPA website, states, “It is our intent to review and adopt as appropriate all recommendations as tabled in the Jacobs study to mitigate ambient noise coming from the BBTCA.” See http://www.torontoport.com/PortAuthority/notices/Iler%20letter%20for%20TPA%20website%20Jan%2020,%202010.pdf
Two things stand out about the TPA’s process. The Jacobs Consultancy recommendations are six months old and the TPA intends to review them. There have been no further community consultations in the last six months.
Airport Director Ken Lundy’s November 13, 2009 letter states the TPA anticipates “that air quality monitoring results and recommendations will be available from [its] consultant in the spring of 2010”. If the TPA’s track record in dealing with the community is anything to go by, the BoH can expect further delay and inaction.
Comments