Dofasco KOBM Meltshop
In June 2007, two applicants requested a review of three Certifcates of Approval for Air Emissions (Cs of A), issued to ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc. (“Dofasco”) for its KOBM meltshop in Hamilton. The applicants assert that years of visible emissions from the meltshop, ongoing problems with sooty particulate deposition in nearby neighbourhoods, and a lack of appropriate response from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and Dofasco led them to request a review. (For a more detailed review of this application, please see 2007 Review of of application for Dofasco C of A.)
Contents |
Background
Among Ontario cities, Hamilton’s air quality historically has been very poor. Although several initiatives have improved Hamilton’s air quality over the years, the levels of air pollution remain higher than or comparable to those of other communities in southern Ontario. Furthermore, for several years, the residents of northeast Hamilton have complained that incidents involving the deposition of fine black airborne particles have caused damage to property and negatively affected their quality of life. During the summer of 2006, complaints of black fallouts led MOE to sample residential properties, inspect industries, and produce a report on the fall- out events. Dofasco’s KOBM meltshop is located approximately 0.5 - 4.5 kilometres from the residences in the main fallout complaint area.
The applicants stated that a review was needed because:
- the meltshop’s existing Cs of A are outdated;
- Dofasco had previously acknowledged problems with the meltshop’s emission controls and indicated that it would install a new system by the end of 2007;
- the current Cs of A do not require stack testing or continuous emissions monitoring;
- the current Cs of A do not require consideration of cumulative impacts on the entire airshed; and
- MOE has no protocol that requires regular reviewing or updating of Cs of A.
The applicants submitted photographic documentation and visual observations to demonstrate that visible emissions from the meltshop are chronic and suggested that Dofasco could be non-compliant with section 14(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) or section 34(1) of O. Reg. 419/05. Moreover, the application contained documentation of the summer 2006 fallout events as potential evidence that industries in the area (perhaps Dofasco) may be out of compliance with section 33 of O. Reg. 419/05.
Ministry Response
In February 2008, MOE denied the application for review on the grounds that Dofasco’s meltshop operations will be reviewed in an application for a Comprehensive C of A (Air) that Dofasco plans to submit by fall 2008. This Comprehensive C of A would replace the three existing Cs of A, cover all air emissions from the meltshop (as well as the rest of the steel plant), and require MOE to review the meltshop’s operations and mitigation measures, making a review of the existing Cs of A redundant. MOE also denied the application for review on the grounds that, in the ministry’s opinion, the potential for harm to the environment if the review were not undertaken was not significant. MOE stated that Dofasco has initiated improvements to its secondary emissions control system as outlined in its Strategic Air Emission Improvement Plan and that MOE conducts regular inspections of Dofasco’s Hamilton operations. MOE stated that technology doesn’t presently permit stack testing or continuous emissions monitoring at the meltshop. Therefore, MOE’s approach is to monitor particulate matter through air monitoring stations throughout Hamilton. Although not directly related to source testing, a Comprehensive C of A would require Dofasco to make an emissions summary table public.
With respect to the applicants’ concern that the meltshop’s existing Cs of A do not consider cumulative impacts, MOE stated that it currently “requires industrial facilities to assess all air emissions and their impact from an airshed perspective to determine compliance with O. Reg. 419/05” and that to complement this, MOE “undertakes air quality assessments of the airshed being impacted to determine whether or not an airshed is stressed and what conditions should be imposed in the C of A for air emissions for facilities located within that airshed.”
Finally, MOE noted that while its report on the summer 2006 black fallout incidents could not identify a definitive source of the particulate matter (and Dofasco asserts that the meltshop does not emit sooty or carbonaceous particles like those involved in the fallouts), Dofasco has submitted a contingency plan for responding to such events. In response to the applicants’ concerns about visible emissions from the meltshop, MOE confusingly pointed to its inability to identify a definitive source of the 2006 black fallout incidents.
Other Information
In February and March 2008, Hamilton media reported on several incidents of visible emissions released from Dofasco’s steel plant. In particular, a huge red plume was produced on March 10, 2008, when excess molten iron from Dofasco’s blast furnace was poured into shallow pits in a process called ‘coffning’ (or ‘beaching’).
In this case, the presence of moisture in the pits resulted in iron oxide particles being emitted into the air. In April 2008, MOE issued a control order to Dofasco focusing on the operating procedures used in the coffning process. The control order does not address emissions from Dofasco’s KOBM melt shop.
ECO Comment
The ECO is very disappointed that MOE was so late (six months overdue) in issuing its decision on this application.
The ECO believes that MOE’s decision to deny this review is reasonable, but only because Dofasco intends to apply for a Comprehensive C of A. Since Dofasco’s application will require MOE to review the meltshop’s operations, and because an approved Comprehensive C of A would replace the meltshop’s existing Cs of A and must be drafted in accordance with O. Reg. 419/05, the ECO believes that a review of the meltshop’s current Cs of A would be redundant. Nonetheless, the ECO’s agreement with MOE’s decision to deny this review is contingent on MOE’s consideration of other issues raised in the application.
The ECO encourages MOE to monitor the reduction of emitted contaminants that results from Dofasco’s planned improvements to the meltshop’s secondary emissions control system. Moreover, the ECO encourages MOE to impose requirements for additional emissions controls, if necessary, when reviewing Dofasco’s application for a Comprehensive C of A.
Likewise, the ECO encourages MOE’s review of Dofasco’s application for a Comprehensive C of A to address the applicants’ concern regarding visible emissions from the meltshop. The ECO finds MOE’s response to this concern confusing since the issue of visible emissions from the meltshop is a separate matter from the fallout incidents. The ECO reminds MOE that it is responsible for responding to this concern and should consider imposing additional air quality controls, if necessary, when reviewing Dofasco’s application for a Comprehensive C of A.
In May 2008, the ECO visited the ArcelorMittal Dofasco steel plant to observe improvements to the meltshop’s secondary emissions control system, as well as changes to the plant’s coffining procedures (see ‘Other Information’ above). The ECO is surprised by the ministry’s response that MOE “requires industrial facilities to assess all air emissions and their impact from an airshed perspective to determine compliance with O. Reg. 419/05.” The ECO notes that this regulation makes no mention of cumulative impacts or the consideration of the local airshed. In fact, MOE itself has acknowledged (in other circumstances) that “[O. Reg. 419/05] does not explicitly deal with background concentrations, cumulative or synergistic effects, persistence and bioaccumulation of contaminants.” The ECO notes that cumulative effects are of signifant concern in stressed airsheds like Hamilton. If MOE is serious about taking an airshed perspective in this case, one would expect MOE to consider the background concentrations and cumulative impacts of key contaminants when setting emissions limits for Dofasco’s Comprehensive C of A.
Although the ECO recognizes that current technology precludes stack testing and continuous emissions monitoring at the meltshop, we do not believe that the suggested alternative (i.e., monitoring particulate matter using air monitoring stations throughout Hamilton) is an equivalent method for measuring contaminant levels emitted from the meltshop and evaluating facility compliance. While ambient air monitoring is benefial for measuring the impacts of emissions on a particular area, it is not useful in attributing emissions to a particular source, especially in a polluted airshed like Hamilton. The ECO is reassured by MOE’s statement that continuous emissions monitoring, source testing, and reporting requirements are considered in the ministry’s review of all Cs of A (Air). We urge MOE to consider these matters when reviewing Dofasco’s Comprehensive C of A.
The ECO shares the applicants’ concern that no MOE protocol requires any regular review or update of Cs of A. The ECO noted in its 2006-2007 Annual Report that “throughout Ontario, many facilities are operating under outdated Cs of A. As a result, there are inequities between more recently licenced facilities – which generally need to meet the most modern and stringent standards – and older permitted facilities, which often continue to operate under outdated standards and models.”
The ECO acknowledges that as the stricter emissions standards in O. Reg. 419/05 take effect between 2010 and 2020, facilities will be expected to examine their emissions and determine whether new pollution controls are needed. However, as the ECO has previously stated, “the success of this regulatory reform will depend on a significant beefing up of MOE’s inspection, compliance and enforcement capacity.” Moreover, since even within this new regulatory framework there is still no requirement that Cs of A (other than Comprehensive Cs of A) be regularly reviewed, the ECO recommends that MOE consider the need for a protocol to review Cs of A on a regular basis.
| This is an article from the 2007/08 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2008. "Dofasco KOBM Meltshop." Getting to K(No)w, ECO Annual Report, 2007-08. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 142-146.
