Setting Environmental Quality Standards in Ontario: MOE’s Standards Plan
The Ministry of the Environment’s Standards Plan, posted as a decision on the Environmental Registry in February 2000, is an update to the Proposed Three Year Plan for Standard Setting that the ministry originally posted in the fall of 1996. In that proposal, MOE laid out a list of prioritized standards for air, water and other media that the ministry planned to develop within the next three years. The ministry proposed to adopt standards from other jurisdictions and to encourage joint development of standards with other regulatory agencies in order to deliver an increased number of scientifically sound environmental standards in a cost-effective manner.
During this reporting period, MOE staff have told the ECO they received negative feedback from stakeholders on their 1996 proposal, causing them to rethink their approach. MOE has worked internally for several years on revising the approach, but has not published annual updates as promised. Moreover, MOE continued during that time to state in news releases, minister’s letters, and business plans that it had an aggressive three-year plan to upgrade and strengthen Ontario’s environmental standards for more than 200 chemical pollutants.
In our 1998 annual report, the ECO recommended that the ministry post an updated plan. MOE carried out this recommendation in a proposal posted in November 1999. The ECO also recommended that MOE post a decision on the outstanding 1996 proposal, including a summary of public comments received, the ministry’s next steps, and a cross reference to the updated plan. MOE also carried out this recommendation, which helps the public understand how the policy changed over time.
There are a number of differences between the 1996 plan and the 1999 plan. In the new plan the priorities on some contaminants have shifted, there are some changes to the public consultation process, and fewer targets and timelines are set, especially for completion of air standards.
Contents |
Priorities on Contaminants have Shifted
The 1999 Standards Plan revises the ministry’s original priorities for developing or updating a variety of air, water, soil, tissue, sludge, compost and sediment standards. The decision notice focuses heavily on air standards: it refines the process used for setting standards for airborne contaminants, reviews current air standards to see whether they are consistent with standards in other jurisdictions, and recommends that 75 air standards be confirmed at their current values. The decision also clarifies which contaminants will receive priority attention for standard-setting, and explains which standards are being developed through joint efforts with the federal government and other provinces.
Changes to Public Consultation
MOE says that the standard-setting process has been modified to allow for formal consultation during each stage of standard-setting, including priority setting, risk assessment and risk management. It appears that the ministry will apply the following six steps in developing each new air standard, and possibly other types of standards:
- An information notice on the Registry, with extensive technical information and a 90-day public comment period.
- An internal ministry review of comments received.
- A proposal notice on the Registry, again with extensive technical information and a 90-day public comment period.
- A preliminary internal risk management analysis, based on comments.
- The ministry will begin more detailed “risk management discussions with affected stakeholders” if there are “compelling implementation issues.”
- The ministry will finalize proposed standards and post a decision, if there are no “significant implementation issues.”
Fewer Targets and Timelines
The updated Standard Setting Plan sets fewer targets and timelines, especially for air standards. In contrast, the 1996 Three Year Plan for Standards Setting had a number of clear timelines and targets, although the ministry fell considerably shor t of those targets, as indicated by the following chart.
|
| |
| Proposed in 1996 | Progress described by MOE, November 1999 |
| 73 for air (17 of these to be completed in 1996/97) |
|
| 37 for drinking water (6 to be completed in 1996/97) |
|
| 29 for surface water (8 to be completed in 1996/97) |
|
| 5 for sediment |
|
| 11 for composting |
|
| 121 for soil placement |
|
| 6 for tissue |
|
MOE’s new Standards Plan lists 70 air standards in development and notes their current status, but not their anticipated completion dates. The Standards Plan also lists numerous standards for drinking water, surface water, tissue residues and sediment quality that are being developed by a national process, with MOE as a participant. Most of these latter standards are expected to be completed within one or two years.
Priorities on Some Timelines Have Shifted
Important contextual information is missing in the new Standards Plan. The plan does not mention the unmet targets the ministry set for itself in 1996, and does not explain why progress has been considerably slower than expected. MOE should have explained why there are no timelines for finalizing new air standards. MOE has also not explained why certain air standards (such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium VI and nickel) are still in development, even though they were considered high priority and originally scheduled for completion in 1996/1997.
Public Participation and the EBR Process
MOE has gone to some lengths to consult with the public on its standard-setting plan, providing 60-day comment periods on both the 1996 and 1999 proposed standard-setting plans, allowing the public adequate time to review the background documents and submit comments. MOE’s 1999 posting included a convenient hyper text link to the background documents. MOE is also providing 90-day comment periods on individual air standards at both the information and proposal stages, which allows the public time to review the extensive background information packages.
To consult on the overall standard-setting plan, the ministry has organized a number of meetings since 1996, including information sessions in early 1997, a public workshop in September 1998, and numerous meetings with various stakeholders. Looking to the future, MOE promises further public consultation on new point-of-impingement models, and states that the ministry will coordinate any consultation efforts under taken nationally with EBR consultation in Ontario.
The ECO does, however, have some concerns with the “risk management process” which MOE intends to apply to each new air standard (see Step 5 above). For each substance, the ministry will weigh information about potential adverse environmental effects against industry information about the technical and economic feasibility of reducing emissions. Under this form of “risk management,” the ministry decides whether to adjust a proposed new standard depending upon emitting facilities’ predictions of how much trouble they will have meeting tougher limits. In effect, the process might be more accurately described as a cost-benefit analysis rather than risk management.
The ministry states that “public consultation is a key part of the risk management process.” However, the ministry has not explained the format for this public consultation, or whether it will be consistently carried out. MOE has outlined what information it would like to receive from emitting facilities, but not how it will evaluate or verify that information, or what criteria will determine whether there are “compelling implementation issues,” triggering further discussions. It is also not clear whether other stakeholders will be able to access or comment on the information, or whether they will be allowed to take part in risk management discussions.
MOE should clarify how it will consult with stakeholders when setting environmental standards. There have been a number of Canadian multi-stakeholder standard-setting processes that MOE could investigate as possible role models, including the MISA Issues Resolution Process, the CCME NOx/VOC Management Plan, or the work of the Advisory Committee on Environmental Standards.
The ECO hopes to discuss with MOE how best to use the Environmental Registry when consulting on individual air standards. MOE currently uses information notices with comment periods, followed by a proposal posting. While the ministry will receive public comments on the information drafts and will probably act on some of them, there is no EBR requirement that the ministry summarize those public comments on information notices or explain how those comments affected the subsequent proposal. As a consequence, neither industry stakeholders nor members of the public are able to properly track or evaluate MOE’s decision-making on air standards, and cannot provide informed comment. One industry association has already raised a concern about this issue.
In Summary
MOE has laid out a general framework for standard-setting for air, water, soil and other media, and has also committed to updating many of its standards. Standard-setting is a complex under taking which has to take into account both scientific and socio-economic factors. The ministry has recognized the need to involve stakeholders in this decision-making, and has taken a number of helpful steps to improve information sharing and public consultation. However, the ministry should have explained why progress on standard-setting has been so much slower than expected, and should set realistic timelines for finalizing new air standards. MOE has also not explained why certain air standards (such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium VI and nickel) are still in development, even though they were considered high priority and originally scheduled for completion in 1996/1997.
MOE should provide more detail on how the risk management component of standard-setting will work, and specifically how the public will be involved. This information should be posted on the Registry for public comment. MOE should also reconsider its use of information notices for individual air standards.
| Recommendation 9:
The ECO recommends that MOE provide more detail on how the risk management component of standard-setting will work, including how the public will be involved, and post this information on the Registry for public comment. |
| 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. "Setting Environmental Quality Standards in Ontario: MOE’s Standards Plan." Changing Perspectives, ECO Annual Report, 1999-2000. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 74-79.
