Air Pollution: Hot Spots, Soot, Dust and Smoke
Contents |
Introduction
Every year, the ECO receives applications from Ontario residents who are concerned about air quality and its effects on the environment and health. Applicants’ concerns are based on far-ranging yet often interconnected issues, including: smog, greenhouse gases, industrial emissions, persistent toxic contaminants, transportation emissions, and transboundary air pollution.
Concern is growing about the cumulative and synergistic effects of air contaminants, particularly in urban settings and heavily burdened airsheds or “hot spots” – areas where several types of heavy industry or other pollution sources are clustered together, resulting in disproportionately high concentrations of air pollution. A recent Ontario court decision involving a citizen challenge of an industrial facility’s approval to burn used tires confirmed that the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) must consider its Statement of Environmental Values, including consideration of cumulative effects, when issuing environmental approvals (see Part 9, Lafarge decision).
During this reporting year, the ECO received four applications expressing various concerns about Ontario’s air regulatory framework, including concerns about heavily burdened airsheds and the regulation of hot spots. We briefly describe these applications below; for more information, refer to the Supplement to the Annual Report, Sections 5 and 6.
Black Soot Discharges in the City of Hamilton
In November 2008, two applicants requested that MOE undertake an investigation of alleged discharges (or “fallouts”) of black soot and particulate matter from three large industries in the City of Hamilton.
For several years, the residents of northeast Hamilton have complained that repeated fallout events have caused damage to property and negatively affected their quality of life. During the summer of 2006, complaints of extreme black fallout events led MOE to sample residential properties, inspect industries, and produce a report on the fallout events. Although the report was unable to definitively ascribe the incidents to any one emissions source, it concluded that the events could be attributed to three companies in the north end of Hamilton. Since 2006, incidents of sooty deposits have continued to affect residents of northeast Hamilton.
In this application, the applicants (one of which was the City of Hamilton) allege that one or more of the three companies have contravened section 14(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (i.e., discharging a contaminant into the natural environment that causes an adverse effect). The applicants stated “[t]he failure of [MOE] to resolve this matter and to make the contraveners accountable for their actions/inaction is of serious concern to the City of Hamilton and to members of the public.”
In January 2009, MOE denied the application for review, stating that “these matters are either currently under active investigation by the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch (IEB) or have been investigated by the ministry’s Hamilton District Office and closed.” MOE stated that it will, however, “continue to inspect companies both proactively and reactively to ensure that companies follow through on commitments to identify problems and improve operations.”
The ECO believes that MOE’s rationale for denying this investigation is valid; it was already well aware of and investigating the ongoing problem of black sooty fallouts in Hamilton. Nevertheless, the ECO appreciates the frustration that the City of Hamilton and its residents must have with this chronic pollution problem and urges MOE to take the steps necessary to resolve it.
Certificates of Approval (Air) for Industrial Facilities in the City of Hamilton
In February 2008, applicants asked MOE to review two Certificates of Approval (Cs of A) for air issued to Poscor Mill Services Corp. (Poscor), for the operation of two open-air scrap yards in Hamilton. At both facilities oxy-propane torches are used to cut large metal pieces for 16 to 24 hours a day, discharging particulate matter and metal emissions into the air.
The applicants stated that Environment Hamilton staff, residents of the area, members of the community and consultants witnessed visible emissions from these facilities. The applicants requested that MOE impose emission control requirements at both facilities similar to those in Cs of A issued to a comparable metal cutting facility in Hamilton.
In May 2008, MOE agreed to undertake the requested review to determine whether amendments to the Cs of A would be appropriate, and to determine whether MOE’s ongoing abatement efforts are adequate. Upon concluding its review in December 2008, MOE proposed amendments to the Cs of A to “require Poscor to undertake source testing and use this information to update its Emission Summary and Dispersion Modeling report.” MOE stated that amendments to the Cs of A will also require the company to develop and implement best management practices (BMP) plans to reduce fugitive dust emissions and impacts, and to reduce fumes and opacity-related issues associated with torching activities. MOE further concluded that abatement action taken by the Hamilton District office of MOE was “in accordance with the ministry’s Compliance Policy.” MOE indicated that the Hamilton District office will continue to monitor the sites to ensure that the BMP plan adequately addresses fugitive dust and visible emissions.
The ECO is pleased that MOE agreed to undertake a review of Poscor’s Cs of A and commends MOE’s conclusion that Poscor’s Cs of A should be amended to address this long-standing pollution problem. The ECO also applauds MOE’s ongoing abatement efforts in response to complaints and scheduled inspections.
The Need for the Regulation of Ontario’s Air Pollution Hot Spots
In early 2009, the ECO received an application requesting a review of the need for a new regulatory framework related to the cumulative impacts of air pollution. The applicants assert that Ontario’s current framework lacks a process to address or reduce the cumulative effects of emissions, and is “unable to adequately protect the environment or human health from the dangers associated with air pollution.” The applicants are particularly concerned about air pollution hot spots, and argued that people living in hot spot areas are exposed to levels of air contaminants “grossly disproportionate to the amount, type and concentration of air pollution in most other communities in Ontario.” The applicants focused on the environmental health crisis in the community of Aamjiwnaang First Nation near Sarnia, Ontario, a well-known hot spot area known as “Chemical Valley,” as evidence of significant deficiencies in the existing air regulatory framework.
In May 2009, MOE notified the applicants that it would undertake the requested review. MOE stated that it is “currently reviewing how it applies the principles of its Statement of Environmental Values (SEV), including cumulative effects assessment and the ecosystem approach, in its environmentally significant decision making,” and that, as part of that review, it would review the matters raised in the application.
The ECO is pleased that MOE has agreed to undertake this review. As MOE’s review is ongoing, the ECO will report on the ministry’s handling of this application and the outcome of the review in a future reporting year.
Ontario’s Policies to Address Open Burning
In March 2007, applicants requested that MOE review Ontario’s policies on open burning. The applicants maintained that open burning of firewood, brush, leaves, etc. in urban areas creates a health hazard, both locally (especially through high particulate levels) and regionally (by its contribution to smog). The applicants claimed that open burning in general produces local emissions in excess of regulated standards. They argued that these emission levels constitute an “adverse effect” and fail to comply with section 14(1) of the EPA. The applicants noted that the Ontario Fire Code (O. Reg. 213/07) prohibits open burning without a permit. However, municipalities are not required to take environmental criteria into account when creating or enforcing by-laws that allow permits for open burning. The applicants expressed concern that municipalities are regulating open burning based on legal authority that is not environmental in intent, and that open burning should be under provincial environmental authority.
In June 2008, MOE indicated that it would not undertake the requested review. MOE stated that the scientific evidence presented did not suggest that, in the circumstances modelled, open burning would result in emissions in excess of the standards, as claimed by the applicants. Furthermore, the ministry stated that if open burning causes an adverse effect or exceeds emissions standards, MOE could still prosecute under the EPA. MOE also pointed out that there are several mechanisms in place providing opportunity to periodically review and assess this issue. MOE concluded that “the potential for harm to the environment is minimal if the review applied for is not undertaken.”
Although MOE did not mention it in its response to the applicants, an MOE staff member had been working with The Clean Air Partnership’s Fireplace Code Advisory Group on a “Municipal Code of Practice for Indoor and Outdoor Fireplaces including Open Air Burning in Ontario” since early June 2008. A final draft of this document was sent to the applicants in March 2009. The proposed Code of Practice provides municipalities with a model set of conditions from which municipalities can draw to create or to modify open-burning by-laws. The ECO supports this proposed Code of Practice, which is in fact a comprehensive approach to all types of residential burning (e.g., fireplaces, wood stoves, agricultural burning, etc.), and goes well beyond the subject of open burning in municipalities.
The ECO believes that MOE’s approach is generally reasonable and its justifications for not reviewing open- burning policies and regulations seem valid. However, the ECO finds MOE’s response to the applicants was somewhat disingenuous; at the same time that MOE told the applicants that their evidence “is not persuasive that open burning in urban environments is an urgent and significant concern,” it was entering into a review process very similar, if somewhat broader, than that requested by the applicants. Further, a number of the applicants’ concerns (e.g., potentially harmful effects of PM2.5 emissions), which MOE concluded in its written response were not adequately supported by the evidence in the application, are identified in the proposed Code of Practice as issues of serious concern and as justification for increased control of open burning practices.
ECO Comment
The applications submitted this year indicate that Ontario’s air regulatory framework is failing to address
problems experienced in heavily burdened airsheds. Air pollution hot spots are problematic not only
because Ontarians living in these areas are subjected to higher concentrations of air contaminants, but also
because multiple emitters in those areas make abatement and enforcement by MOE significantly more
challenging.
The ECO commends MOE for treating Ontarians’ air quality concerns seriously and for taking action to
respond to such concerns. However, ad hoc responses to public complaints about specific events and
after-the-fact investigations are not enough to resolve the chronic issues that plague residents living in
these stressed airsheds.
The ECO has long pointed to the need to address cumulative and synergistic effects of air pollution, and
MOE has itself acknowledged that the existing regulatory framework requires “future policy direction” to
address “background concentrations, cumulative or synergistic effects, persistence and bioaccumulation of
contaminants.”
The ECO is pleased that MOE is working to incorporate cumulative effects consideration into its
environmental decision-making. The ECO sees a need for system-wide changes to the air permitting
process to ensure that it is protective of health and the environment in all Ontario communities.
| This is an article from the 2008/09 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2009. "Air Pollution: Hot Spots, Soot, Dust and Smoke." Building Resilience, ECO Annual Report, 2008-09. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 90-93.
