MOE Plans to Control Industrial Air Emissions
Contents |
Introduction
The Ministry of the Environment faces the daunting task of strengthening controls on air emissions of thousands of industrial facilities across Ontario. Although most facilities do have existing certificates of approval (Cs of A) for air emissions, they may not be providing adequate environmental protection because they are based on a very outdated regulatory framework. This old framework relies on air standards that are in some cases over 25 years old and on seriously dated air dispersion computer models that are over 30 years old.
MOE's Challenge
MOE’s challenge has been to develop policy mechanisms that give industry a relatively smooth, transparent transition from the status quo to compliance with its proposed new air standards and current air dispersion models. The new air standards are in some cases going to be as much as one hundred times more stringent. Moreover, the new, more accurate air dispersion models will be predicting significantly higher concentrations of contaminants at property lines under certain meteorological and site conditions. Thus, it is expected that many existing facilities will find themselves out of compliance with the new rules, even if their actual emissions are unchanged. To begin to comply, facilities will have to upgrade their pollution control equipment, change their production methods, or employ pollution prevention techniques – or some combined approach. Such changes require planning, the hiring of consultants, financing, installation and testing, and, above all, considerable time.
MOE's Solution
MOE’s solution is the risk-based plan outlined in the Guideline for the Implementation of Air Standards in Ontario (the Guideline). This concept has been modified and embellished several times since 2001, but the essence remains a phase-in plan for the new rules and the opportunity for facilities to apply for regulatory relief on a case-by-case basis if their predictions show they will not be able to meet the new rules by the phase-in deadlines. A draft version of the Guideline (though not the most recent one) was posted on the Registry as a proposal in June 2004 (PA04E0010). To keep key stakeholders updated on the ministry’s evolving thinking about the Guideline, MOE hosted several public full-day information sessions in Toronto in September 2004 and April 2005. These well-attended meetings allowed the ministry to describe the policy adjustments being contemplated, to answer questions and to receive immediate feedback.
Response to Stakeholder Comments
At the April 2005 information session, MOE staff outlined stakeholder comments and how they had influenced the ministry’s newest proposed elements of the Guideline and proposed regulation. While MOE received support for its general direction and for reasonable phase-in periods for standards and models, there was industry concern that the initiative would further bog down the ministry’s approvals process. There was also a concern that the consulting community would not be able to cope with the technical complexity of the Guideline within the proposed time frames. Some stakeholders asserted that odour should not be treated as the basis for an air standard. While industry believed that the ministry’s choices of trigger points were too stringent, environmental groups argued that they were not stringent enough. To deal with such issues, MOE proposed a staggered introduction of the new rules and a number of other changes:
- Air emission sources would be divided into three groups of sectors, with Group 1 becoming subject to new rules by 2010. Group 2 would be subject by 2013, and the remainder of Ontario facilities would be targeted by 2020. Risk factors (such as health risks of emitted contaminants and the likelihood and magnitude of exceedances) were used to assign sectors into each group.
- Group 1 would include metal ore mining, fossil fuel power plants, petroleum refining, basic chemical manufacturers, resin, synthetic rubber and fibre and filament manufacturers, iron and steel mills and ferrous alloy manufacturing, non-ferrous smelting and refining (except aluminum) and foundries.
- Group 2 would include pulp, paper and paperboard mills, other petroleum and coal products manufacturing, chemical manufacturing, urethane and miscellaneous foam product manufacturing, other non-metallic mineral product manufacturing,primary metal manufacturing, fabricated metal product manufacturing, transportation equipment manufacturing, waste treatment and disposal.
- After 2010, MOE would have the authority to require new models to be used for facilities in other sectors.
- Facilities affected by the tougher new standards or the improved dispersion models could seek regulatory relief by applying for an “alternative standard.”
- Any facility applying for an “alternative standard” would have to use the new dispersion models to predict concentrations of contaminants, and submit an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) Report, a Technology Benchmarking Report, an Action Plan with Schedule on how to implement methods, and a summary of pre-submission consultation with local stakeholders, including residents.
- MOE would decide whether an “alternative standard” should be granted to a facility, based on the frequency and nature of the exceedences (e.g., carcinogens or non-carcinogens), the proximity of sensitive populations (e.g, nearby childcare facilities), etc.
- To improve odour management, MOE released Proposed Revisions to Odour-Based Ambient Air-Quality Criteria and Development of an Odour Policy Framework in April 2005 (PA05E0007).
- MOE predicted that by 2013, over 1,000 facilities would be required to maintain compliance records on-site, although some industry representatives believe the number could be as high as 10,000.
At its April 2005 public information session, the ministry stated its intention to finalize the Guideline and new dispersion models quickly through amendments to Regulation 346 R.R.O., 1990, and encouraged stakeholders to submit written comments promptly, ideally by early May. While industry representatives noted with appreciation the substantive good-faith consultations that MOE had led on the topic thus far, they also requested another comment opportunity through the Registry.
In early May, MOE responded to this request by posting a proposal to revoke and replace Regulation 346, with a 30-day comment period. In late June 2005, MOE revised the regulatory framework as promised, by finalizing O. Reg. 419/05. However, decisions on related Registry proposals had not yet been posted on the Registry as of July 26, 2005.
ECO Comment
The ECO’s 2003/2004 annual report encouraged MOE to move quickly to update its regulatory framework for industrial air emissions. The ministry’s previous attempt to overhaul Regulation 346 R.R.O., 1990, extended from 1987 to 1990, and eventually floundered. The ministry has been labouring on this latest effort since at least 2001, as reflected by at least five inter-connected policy proposals on the Registry (see the following chart). It was important that stakeholder comments were solicited and considered on this initiative, given the significant implications for many industrial sectors. But the regulated sectors also have a need for certain and predictable rules to allow them to set priorities and plan investments over the next five to 10 years. Most important, Ontario’s environment urgently needs reductions in industrial air-borne emissions of carcinogens like chloroform and acrylonitrile, metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium and nickel, and numerous other problematic contaminants – reductions that cannot be achieved until this initiative is put in place. The ECO commends MOE for finalizing the regulatory amendments, and expects to review them in our 2005/2006 annual report.
| This is an article from the 2004/05 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2005. "MOE's Proposal to Control Industrial Air Emissions." Planning our Landscape, ECO Annual Report, 2004-05. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 55-59.
