Too Close for Comfort: Separation Distances between Industrial Facilities and Residences
Contents |
Background
In June 2007, Collingwood Ethanol (CE) began manufacturing fuel-grade ethanol from corn using the wet milling process. Located within an industrial park in the east end of the Town of Collingwood, CE is approximately 210 to 830 metres west of various sections of the Blue Shores residential area and within 115 metres of another residential area. Since then, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), Collingwood and CE have received hundreds of complaints from residents about odour and noise discharges. MOE investigated and in 2008 laid 17 charges under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and issued two Director’s Orders. MOE also advised CE that if contraventions continued after August 31, 2008, further actions would be taken.
When residents in the area continued to complain about odour and noise problems, an MOE Provincial Officer (PO) investigated, visiting the area on at least 10 occasions. The PO confirmed that odour and noise levels in the area still exceeded the maximum levels that CE was allowed to discharge under its Certificate of Approval (C of A) for Air. The PO also concluded that odour and noise discharges were causing an adverse effect (a contravention of section 14(1) of the EPA), as well as discomfort to persons, loss of enjoyment of normal use of property and/or interference with the normal conduct of business (a contravention of section 33 of O. Reg. 419/05 – Local Air Quality, made under the EPA).
Control Order
On January 29, 2009, MOE issued a Control Order requiring CE to immediately cease contravening the EPA and O. Reg. 419/05. The Control Order also requires CE to submit a written report to MOE within 24 hours of receipt of notification from MOE that CE may be a source of a contaminant that is causing an adverse effect. In the report, CE must describe the measures that it is taking to control the discharges. MOE advised CE that, if the measures are ineffective, it may require CE to cease operations. (For a more detailed review of this decision, please see Section 4.2 of the Supplement to this Annual Report.)
Public Participation
Most of the 117 commenters on the draft October 2008 Control Order asked MOE to shut down the facility either temporarily or permanently. Commenters explained that they have been forced to stay indoors to avoid foul odours and/or excessive noise and have suffered headaches, nausea and other health effects. The Collingwood East Environmental Action Committee (CEEAC) advised that a temporary closure was required since the area has been adversely affected for an extended period of time. In addition, CEEAC pointed out that closing the facility would protect the community from further harm and compel CE to implement a solution. CEEAC supported its comments with odour and noise readings taken by MOE that exceeded levels allowed in CE’s C of A (Air).
CE also commented on the draft Control Order stating that it was shut down when some of the complaints were received and that recent independent odour testing had indicated that it was in compliance. According to CE, “a great many noise and odour abatement actions ... in most cases under the auspices of Provincial Officer’s Orders” have been taken and more are planned. Other commenters noted that the odour issues have remained the same or even improved since the time another company manufactured starches at the facility.
Land Use Planning Guidelines
MOE has several guidelines, last revised in 1995, to help municipalities make appropriate land use decisions. In Procedure D-1-1 (Land Use Compatibility: Procedure for Implementation), MOE explains that municipalities must protect residential areas and other sensitive land uses from “facilities”; the ministry suggests that municipalities use separation distances and other types of buffers to reduce odour and noise discharges from industry to the “trivial impact level.” Facilities are defined broadly to include not only industrial plants, but transportation, commercial, utility and certain agricultural facilities as well.
In Guideline D-6 (Compatibility Between Industrial Facilities & Sensitive Land Uses), MOE establishes three minimum separation distances based on the probability that an air discharge from an industrial facility will be a “major annoyance” to sensitive receptors, such as residences, schools and hospitals. In Guideline D-6, MOE also acknowledges that the areas encompassed by the minimum separation distances are considerably less than the areas that may actually be affected by industrial air discharges. As a result, minimum separation distances may not protect all receptors from the effects of odour and noise discharges.
ECO Comment
The ECO strongly supports the goal of further urban intensification. However locating industrial facilities in close proximity to residential neighbourhoods, schools, hospitals, parks and other sensitive land uses is problematic and requires careful planning. The federal, provincial and municipal governments all issued approvals to CE in the belief that air discharges from CE would not adversely affect residents. However, regulatory and abatement strategies so far have failed in this case, despite a significant investment in technology by CE. In addition, separation distances have not mitigated the effects of discharges to a “trivial impact level” on the neighbouring residential areas. The ECO urges MOE to consider a more aggressive approach to ensuring compliance with legislative requirements in this case.
In general, locating facilities with potentially highly odorous or noisy discharges in close proximity to sensitive land uses or vice versa requires due diligence, adherence to stringent environmental standards, and effective abatement and enforcement measures in order to avoid problems. The use of separation distances to mitigate the effects of discharges can also be helpful.
The ECO believes that MOE should review its existing planning guidelines, particularly the guidelines on separation distances. These guidelines seem to delineate separation zones that can be much smaller than zones of significant impact and do not seem to protect receptors from adverse effects.
| 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. "Too Close for Comfort: Separation Distances between Industrial Facilities and Residences." Building Resilience, ECO Annual Report, 2008-09. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 33-35.
