**Please post this comment…

**Please post this comment with the final EBR decision! There is nothing in this submission that needs to be protected under privacy rules. April 20, 2018 RE: EBR Registry No.013-4825, MECP Ref No. 4499-B94QJ3 – Bunge Canada Holdings Dear Madam/Sir, Please accept this submission as Environment Hamilton’s formal comments on Bunge Canada Holding’s application for both a renewal and an amendment to the limited operational flexibility for its ECA – Air & Noise for the company’s facility at 515 Victoria Avenue North in Hamilton. Our concerns are detailed below. Odour Impacts We have been reporting odour impacts from Bunge for longer than we can remember at this point. As part of our efforts to engage community in effective observing/smelling, documenting and reporting pollution impacts in the city, we have become involved ourselves in regularly reporting problems with air and odour emissions. Bunge is a regular culprit and we call in whenever we are in the north end of the city and notice the smell – see end of this submission for the list of formally submitted odour complaints along with MECP incident numbers where provided. But we sometimes experience the smell right in downtown Hamilton – it definitely can travel that far and we are not alone in experiencing this reality. Abatement staff from the Hamilton District Office of the MECP have indicated to us that they have on occasion noticed the Bunge smell right outside the District Offices on King Street in the city core. All of this is evidence that the company has a problem. Despite this, we have been unable to generate action to see this problem effectively resolved. Late last summer, our complaint garnered a response from the District Office EO that they did not notice an odour and that no one else complains. This is not an acceptable response. The facility does smell – but most residents do not know who to call so to conclude that no one else is impacted and/ or concerned is not acceptable. We are urging the MECP to take steps to resolve the odour problems at this facility once and for all! We are tired of the company externalizing its odour issues - forcing the rest of the community to smell the unpleasant smell of their operations – rather than taking steps and possibly investing in equipment/ technology to effectively resolve these unpleasant odours. We have noticed that other facilities in the city HAVE been required to adhere to a higher standard where odour impacts are concerned. Both Canadian Asphalt (formerly Bunge) and Sanimax have ECAs (Air & Noise) that include requirements not to exceed an 1 odour unit limit at the closest sensitive receptor. But the Bunge ECA does not include a similar condition. Below are the details regarding these provisions within the ECAs for each of these facilities: Bitumar – now called Canadian Asphalt – operates a bitumen facility at 400 Eastport Boulevard in Hamilton. The company’s ECA (Air & Noise) No 6115-7PCHU8 includes, under the section entitled ‘Performance Measures’, a requirement related to odours that reads as follows: (7) the 10-minute average concentration of odour at the most impacted (with highest concentration) Sensitive Receptor, resulting from the operation of the Facility, calculated in accordance with the procedures outlined in Schedule C, shall not exceed 1 odour unit. Sanimax, located at 800 Parkdale Avenue North also has within its ECA (Air & Noise) No. 5174-9U3M9A in the section entitled ‘Performance’ the following requirements: 1. The Company shall ensure that the Facility is designed and operated to comply, at all times, with the following performance requirements: (1) The 10-minute average concentration of odour at the most impacted Sensitive Receptor, resultingfrom the operation of the Facility, calculated in accordance with the procedures outlined in Schedule "A", shall not exceed 1 odour unit. The Sanimax ECA (Air & Noise) also includes a helpful definition of what constitutes a ‘sensitive receptor’ for the purposes of this performance requirement: 14. "Sensitive Receptor" means any location where routine or normal activities occurring at reasonably expected times would experience adverse effect(s) from odour discharges from the Facility, including one or a combination of: (a) private residences or public facilities where people sleep (eg: single and multi-unit dwellings, nursing homes, hospitals, trailer parks, camping grounds, etc.), (b) institutional facilities (eg: schools, churches, community centres, day care centres, recreational centres, etc.), (c) outdoor public recreational areas (eg: trailer parks, play grounds, picnic areas, etc.), and (d) commercial areas where there are continuous public activities (eg: commercial plazas and office buildings). We are requesting that the MECP include similar requirements in the ECA (Air & Noise) for Bunge Canada Holdings. It seems unfair and inappropriate to us that these two facilities have more stringent odour control requirements included in their ECAs than Bunge has in its ECA (Air & Noise). Clearly, givne the chronic odour problems at the plant – more needs to be done and more stringent ECA requirements can only help on this front. We are also requesting that the company be required to post a sign at its entranceway – that includes both a telephone number and an email address that community can use to report any complaints or concerns related to Bunge’s operations in north Hamilton. Air Emissions – as set out in ESDM Report We did take the opportunity to review the file associated with this EBR posting and have come to learn that Bunge is seeking approval for three non-emergency diesel generators. In its documentation, the company explains that it needs these three diesel generators (each with an electrical output of 2.5MWe) ‘to reduce community electrical demand during peak hours’ and to use as ‘standby during power interuptions’. Given the location of the facility, we are very concerned about this proposal to bring 3 large diesel generators on-line to address peak hour power demands. We cannot afford to see more unnecessary sources of air pollution introduced into the compromised airshed in the north end of the city. And to propose the use of diesel generators during peak demand periods seems doubly inappropriate as peak demand periods can be during heat waves or other times when the airshed might already be struggling from impacts. We do not support this request and we urge the Ministry to require the company to pursue other options for dealing with peak power demand; this proposal is not appropriate. We are also concerned about the levels of PM – in the form of TSP – being reported in the company’s ESDM summary chart. The modelled 88% is very high – and we worry that the company needs to do more to control TSP levels. This reinforces our concern that using diesel-powered generators for non-emergency situations is not appropriate. Hamilton already struggles with high levels of PM pollution; our downtown provincial AQHI monitor routinely logs the highest levels of PM2.5 in the province. We cannot afford to increase these levels. We are also concerned about the very high NOx levels (both 1 hour and 24 hour values) coming from the facility. Why are the plant’s NOx levels so high and what are they being required to do to address this? We are not confident that the company is capable of operating the plant in a manner that complies with NOx regulatory limits – given that the models suggest they are at 90% of the Ministry’s 24 hour limits. We also reviewed the odour unit data set out in the file. The numbers there suggest to us that Bunge would not meet the 1 ou limit over a 10 minute averaging time set out in the ECAs of other local facilities. This reinforces our desire to see such requirements added to Bunge’s ECA (Air & Noise). Loss of Use & Enjoyment of Property We have also heard very recently from a number of community members living in close proximity to the facility who have shared with us concerns about loss of use and enjoyment of their properties. We have urged these community members to submit their concerns to you through the EBR process. Some talk about not being able to open their windows in the warmer weather. Others worry about having friends and family over for summer outdoor gatherings because they are embarrassed about the odour problems. And some worry about whether the odours come with health implications – expressing fear about letting their kids play outside. All of these concerns confirm for us that not enough has been done by Bunge to address the odour impacts the company is generating and inflicting on its residential neighbours in north Hamilton. We are requesting that the Ministry of Environment impose tougher conditions where odour impacts are concerned by requiring that the company not surpass 1 odour unit at the closest sensitive receptor. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal and we urge you to take steps to resolve the significant odour impacts from the Bunge facility. Lynda M. Lukasik, PhD Executive Director Environment Hamilton 22 Wilson Street, Suite 4 Hamilton, ON L8R 1C5 TEL: (905) 549-0900 cc EH Board of Directors Environment Hamilton - record of odour complaints filed by us since the Summer of 2016 July 27th, 2016 – formal complaint filed – Ministry Reference No. 8322-AC9KF6 July 29th, 2016 – formal complaint filed – Ministry Reference No. 4210-ACBNRB Aug 4th, 2016 – formal complaint filed – no response from Ministry SAC to email Aug 15th, 2016 – formal complaint filed – Ministry Reference No. 6512-ACUK73 Aug 17th, 2016 – formal complaint filed - Ministry Reference No. 1348-ACWHSC Sept 14th, 2016 – formal complaint filed – no response from Ministry SAC to email Nov 18th, 2016 – formal complaint filed – no response from Ministry SAC to email Apr 5th, 2017 – formal complaint filed – Ministry Reference No. 5343-AL5QSR Apr 27th, 2017 – formal complaint filed – could smell the plant in downtown Hamilton – no SAC response June 6th & 7th, 2017 – formal complaint filed – no SAC response to email Aug 31, 2017 – formal complaint filed with District Office staff Sept 1, 2017 – follow up with additional complaint to District Office staff – who share incident numbers for Aug 31 & Sept 1 incidents - 1053-AQWMGM and 3556-AQWMKP Aug 31, 2018 – formal complaint filed with District Office – incident report no 4467-B46KM4 – Ministry staff ultimately responded and explained that EO did not notice odours and that they do not get many odour complaints from others – and that was pretty much the end of it… but the odours continue!

[Original Comment ID: 215801]