Ontario Power Generation …

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) appreciates the opportunity to make a submission on the proposal to transfer requirements from Ontario’s industrial effluent monitoring and limits regulations into ECA and revoke the regulations (ERO 019-0773).

OPG supports the proposed transfer of the MISA regulation requirements into Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs). The proposed changes would allow for the flexibility of applying for changes to the applicable requirements via the ECA amendment process. While overall the proposal will have a positive impact on OPG’s operations, OPG would like to make the following recommended suggestions and general commentary.

1. Impact on non-operational facilities: Consideration should be given to excluding the transfer of the MISA requirements to ECAs for non-operational facilities.

2. Grandfathering MISA sampling points: The transfer of the MISA requirements to individual facility ECAs should account for previously eliminated sampling points at a facility either through Section 7 of the Regulation or other means.

3. Changing requirements under the Spill Prevention and Contingency Plans Regulation (O. Reg. 224/07) & Environmental Penalties Regulation (O. Reg. 222/07): When the MISA regulation is revoked, OPG requests that facilities that do not meet the criteria described in subsection 3(1)(c) of O. Reg. 222/07 should not have any requirements under either O. Reg. 224/07 or O. Reg. 222/07 (i.e. subsection 3(1)(a)) should be removed.

4. Consolidating MISA and ECA reporting requirements (format and frequency): Current reporting requirements for MISA and ECAs typically use different databases to collect data (i.e. MEWS reporting vs email submissions). These should be consolidated into one consistent reporting format, using a single report, without any overlap. Additionally, O. Reg. 215/95 requires quarterly data reporting for facilities. ECA reporting includes annual data reporting. Adopting annual reporting would streamline reporting, help to eliminate red-tape, and reduce burden and cost for both reporting sites and the regulator.

5. Updating sampling protocols and methodology: The ECA should easily allow for the inclusion of newer, effective, streamlined analytical protocol, and the elimination of older, regulatory ones. Adopting ECA definitions for sampling protocols may allow greater flexibility in negotiating acceptable arrangements for collecting samples. OPG wishes to suggest to the MECP new analytical methods (i.e. outside the MISA Protocol). Sampling time windows, such as arbitrary definitions like the MISA day (noon to noon, or sampling windows starting at 9 am, etc.), are a cause of miscommunication, which should be resolved by the ECA process.
OPG also suggests removing the 15% accuracy requirement, as it exceeds customary industry practice, for a less stringent requirement: Or to maintain flexibility and simplicity, suggest that “good industry practice,” or similar term, be adapted as the specified terminology for flow measurement accuracy, so that measurements are generally compatible with the risks and equipment available.

6. Requesting a comment period when transferring MISA requirements to an ECA: Sufficient time should be allowed to review the draft ECA, to ensure that the ECA has sufficient flexibility. O. Reg. 215/95, as a Regulation, is written in an entirely different structure and format as to ECA’s, and this time is needed to ensure that there is alignment with a new or existing ECA prior to implementation. A good review period and feedback, will help with clarity and understanding of requirements and prevent any conflictions or duplications. Including the MECP in the review process would allow for some flexibility to discuss site specific concerns prior to finalizing the ECA.

I would be happy to discuss these comments further, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 647-462-8487.

Thank you,
Barbara Medeiros, Senior Manager – Environment, Health and Safety Corporate Programs