Nuisance Impacts from Discharges of Noise and Odours
Many human activities result in the discharge of noise and odours into the environment. At low levels, these discharges are accepted as a daily fact of life. However, at high levels, noise and odours can seriously interfere with people’s use of the environment and possibly cause damage both to their health and to the environment. For this reason, section 14 of Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act (EPA) specifically prohibits the discharge of any odour or sound that is likely to cause an adverse effect. This includes:
- impairment of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it
- harm or material discomfort to any person
- loss of enjoyment of normal use of property
- interference with the normal conduct of business.
The Ministry of the Environment administers the EPA and is responsible for responding to noise and odour complaints, as well as to EBR applications for investigation where it is alleged that someone is discharging noise and odours in contravention of section 14 of the EPA.
In 1999, three applications for investigation were submitted by applicants who were concerned with noise and odour impacts on the environment, their health and their property (see S7 in the supplement to this annual report for more information on these applications). The sources of noise and odours included a drag strip raceway, a milling operation, and a recycling plant. While at first glance, none of these sources would seem to pose a threat to the environment, for people living near them, the interference with their use of the local environment may be unbearable.
MOE did investigate the allegations contained in the three applications and found either a contravention or an adverse effect on the environment in each case. Yet the ministry did not take any direct enforcement action against any of the contravenors. In regard to the recycling plant and the milling operation, MOE relied upon assurances from the contravenors that they would under take voluntary abatement measures to rectify the problems. In regard to the drag strip raceway, MOE refrained from taking further action because a new regulation was passed amending the Approval Exemption Regulation (AER) (see pages 71-72) to exempt all raceways from requiring a certificate of approval under section 9 of the EPA.
MOE’s response to these applications suggests to the applicants and other residents that the ministry does not place a high priority on enforcing contraventions of section 14 of the EPA caused by noise and odour discharges. In two cases, MOE failed to provide a satisfactory explanation to the applicants of why voluntary measures were taken instead of enforcement measures. Similarly, MOE’s decision not to take enforcement action because of the exemption provided by the AER regulation is misguided. The AER provides an exemption only from the requirement to obtain a certificate of approval under section 9 of EPA. It does not exempt anyone from the prohibition on causing an adverse effect to the environment under section 14 of the Act.
In 1996, MOE explored the potential for municipalities to take responsibility for local environmental nuisance problems, including those caused by noise and odours. The ministry received some significant negative feedback in response to this proposal. Some municipalities stated that they lacked the resources and expertise to investigate noise and odour discharges and some industry groups preferred more uniform provincial regulation. Despite this response, in August 1997, MOE implemented the “Procedures for Responding to Pollution Incident Reports.” The policy directs staff not to respond to most complaints involving noise and odours, listing a number of sources of air and noise discharges that MOE staff should refer to municipalities when a complaint is received. Furthermore, staff are instructed not to investigate these types of complaints “regardless of whether or not there is another organization that may or may not respond.” It appears that MOE made this decision, effectively downloading responsibility for noise and odours to municipalities, despite the concerns raised about the capacity of municipalities to take effective action against these discharges and without adequate public consultation.
MOE should make broad strategic decisions about its enforcement efforts in an open, transparent manner, using the Environmental Registry to consult with the residents of Ontario. MOE has a statutory duty to administer the EPA and take enforcement action in response to contraventions of the EPA that may cause an adverse effect on the environment. We are not aware that the Ontario Legislature has given the ministry relief from that obligation in these cases. As the above- noted applications for investigation demonstrate, some people in Ontario are suffering negative impacts from noise and odour discharges. These people rely upon and expect MOE to help them address these problems.
| Recommendation 10:
The ECO recommends that MOE use the Environmental Registry to consult with Ontario residents when it makes broad strategic decisions about its enforcement efforts. |
| This is an article from the 1999/2000 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2000. "Nuisance Impacts from Discharges of Noise and Odours." Changing Perspectives, ECO Annual Report, 1999-2000. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 90-91.
