I. Hussain…

I. Hussain
Manager
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Sciences and Standards Division
Standards Development Branch
40 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 7
Toronto Ontario
M4V 1M2

Re: Comments on EBR Posting 013-903 from Vale Canada

Dear Ms. Hussain:

This letter provides input from Vale Canada Limited on the “Regulatory Amendments Related to Air Emissions of Sulphur Dioxide and Other Items”, EBR Registry # 013-903.

Vale Canada Limited is one of the world’s leading mining and metals companies, with our Base Metals business producing nickel and nickel specialty products as well as copper, cobalt and precious metals at facilities around the world. We operate integrated mining and processing facilities in Sudbury, and a cobalt and precious metals refinery in Port Colborne. Vale employs almost 4,000 people directly in Sudbury and Port Colborne, with thousands more employed indirectly through contracted goods and services in Northern Ontario’s mining supply and service sector. We have operated in Ontario for more than a century, and pride ourselves on being a good corporate citizen, supporting our communities in a meaningful and significant way. This includes significant attention to and investment in environmental sustainability.

Vale is committed to the protection of human health and the environment from the effects of sulphur dioxide (SO2) from our operations in Sudbury. This commitment has been demonstrated through our continuous and significant improvement on SO2 reduction over the years, and currently through our Clean AER (Atmospheric Emissions Reduction) Project. At a cost of approximately, $1.2 billion, the project will deliver an 85% reduction in SO2 , from approximately 150 kilotonnes today on an annual basis to approximately 20-25 kilotonnes per year. This project includes the decommissioning of the iconic Sudbury Superstack in 2019, which will no longer be required with the significantly reduced volume of emissions. Of note, in addition to reducing sulphur dioxide emissions, the project will reduce total GHG emissions from our Copper Cliff Smelter from 270,000 to 150,000 T CO2e / year by 2020, representing a 40% reduction. Of further note, this investment was made in the face of no economic return.

Our actions to reduce emissions over the years have been successful as demonstrated through a well-established monitoring network in Sudbury which is shared with Sudbury Integrated Nickel Operations, a Glencore Company. The monitoring network provides publicly-available, real-time air quality results based on monitored data. This data shows compliance with the current provincial hourly air standard for SO2 the vast majority of the time. Both Glencore and Vale also work cooperatively to ensure compliance and curtail production in situations where weather or other factors predict conditions where non-compliance is even a possibility.
In other words, the monitoring network already established in Sudbury provides both actual SO2 readings and results at precise locations, and offers peace of mind for Sudbury residents that their health is being protected.
As such, Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner has recently held Sudbury up as a model for the rest of the province to follow. In the Ontario Environmental Commissioner’s latest report, Good Choices, Bad Choices: Environmental Rights and Environmental Protection in Ontario, she noted:

In Sudbury, two companies operating the majority of large polluting facilities jointly maintain, and publicly disclose the results of, 18 fixed SO2 monitoring stations. They are also required to predict where the highest pollutant concentrations will occur and to send a mobile monitor to those locations. For this purpose, they maintain a sophisticated weather office, and jointly sponsor a third party to monitor and report the pollution. Real time SO2 data is accessible on two public websites. Facilities curtail production when necessary to avoid exceeding ambient air pollutant limits in the community. The MOECC should require Sarnia’s industrial facilities to undertake similar measures.

Notwithstanding the demonstrated commitment, the MOECC is proposing a significant decrease to the hourly provincial air standard for SO2 from the current 250 parts per billion (ppb) to less than 40 ppb. While this is a significant step change in itself, the regulation also prescribes a conservative modelling technique to ascertain compliance. The net effect of these two factors is such that Vale cannot now, nor ever, achieve compliance. Furthermore, based on our measured results, even if Vale could achieve compliance, it would create no further benefit in terms of health outcomes to the residents of Sudbury.
The unintended consequence of implementing the proposed standard includes unnecessary community uncertainty and concern over potential health issues that are not demonstrated through the monitored data. In addition, the proposed changes to O. Reg. 419/05 will create a significant gap between achievable operating standards and the new provincial standard, negatively impacting our company’s ability to continue to operate in the province.
With respect to SO2, various areas within the Province have different issues. In 2016, the MOECC outlined a regional approach to managing air zones in Ontario in EBR posting 012-4347. The Sudbury area was identified as one such air zone. One intent of the air zone approach was to “delineate and manage air zones in a manner best suited to the environmental conditions and regional/local circumstances”. Rather than proceed with the air zone approach, the Ministry has opted to manage SO2 using the standard approach within O.Reg. 419/05. The one-size-fits-all approach to regulating SO2 like other contaminants, while certainly conservative, greatly over-regulates beyond a level that is justified by real-world concerns.

Generally speaking, Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs) are dealt with by most jurisdictions by identifying non-attainment areas and then developing plans specific to that area. Canada’s federal government has been approaching the implementation of the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) in this manner. Vale supports this approach, and to this end, we support standards, or implementation of standards, that recognizes the specific issues related to each area or location. This also recognizes that the management of CACs similar to other health-based standards has the potential to have severe economic impacts on large industries in Northern Ontario, which tend to be the anchor industries in the communities in which they are located. This one-size-fits-all approach to standards setting for CACs will disproportionately affect Northern Ontario.

Vale strongly believes that CACs are most effectively managed using an air zone or air shed approach rather than through the processes inherent in O.Reg. 419/05, and specifically, we agree with the Ministry’s consultation question to have the current standards apply to Northern Ontario. We also believe that monitoring should be recognized as a pathway to compliance.

To support this position, the submission intends to demonstrate:
-Significant abatement actions have already been implemented in Sudbury, and there are no commercially available or technically feasible options to reduce SO2 concentrations to the proposed new standard at Vale’s smelter operations.

-Compared to other jurisdictions, Ontario is proposing the most stringent regulatory framework with respect to SO2 that is not necessary to achieve the goal of being protective of human health.

-Concern over potential health issues is not validated by the monitoring data in Sudbury; the current air standard, as measured by the extensive monitoring network, is protective of the community.

Vale’s key concerns regarding the “Regulatory Amendments Related to Air Emissions of Sulphur Dioxide and Other Items” can be summarized as follows:
The health of Vale’s businesses in Sudbury will be severely compromised by the proposed regulatory amendments on SO2. Even in an unprecedented downturn in the nickel market, Vale is now in the final stages of our $1.2 billion Clean AER Project to comply with current SO2 standards; and now, having not yet even completed the project, the goalposts are moving on us. We continue to operate in a very challenging market, and we can no longer afford to invest dollars in emissions reduction projects – those dollars have to be focused on developing new mines. With three of our mines coming to the end their natural lives without investment, Vale requires almost $2 billion in capital over the next 5 years, or we will not have a viable business in Sudbury post 2026. Regulatory uncertainty hinders our ability to attract investment in a highly competitive environment for capital across Vale globally. Investment in our mines is essential to maintain direct employment of almost 4,000 people in Sudbury and indirect employment of thousands more. The need to “get it right” with SO2 is pressing and immediate given that new standards for nitrogen oxides are also likely to be reviewed in the near future.

The health risk contemplated by the MOECC is overstated. By taking a science-based number of 200 ppb where adverse health effects may be expected, and dividing it by 5, the Ministry has layered uncertainty factors onto the scientific findings that drive the proposed new standard lower while delivering no additional health benefit to the public. Uncertainty factors may be appropriate when transposing test results on lab rats to a human receptor. In this instance, however, the tests for SO2 are conducted on humans (asthmatic and healthy) – so there is no need for additional uncertainty factors. The true measure based on science should be much higher.

The new standard the Ministry is proposing is unprecedented, even on a measured basis. The US currently has a SO2 standard of 70 ppb on a measured basis, and the EU has a number of 120 ppb on a measured basis.

The federal CAAQS number on SO2 is meant to be an airshed limit – not a fenceline limit. The Ministry is taking an aspirational value, intended to be achieved over time in a large air shed, and translating it into a fence-line industrial limit that our company cannot achieve based on available technology.

This situation is only exacerbated by the requirement for modeled compliance as well as measured compliance. According to our shared network with Glencore of 18 monitoring stations across the Sudbury Basin, on a measured basis, readings are below 40 ppb more than 95% of the time – and even this performance would be expected to significantly improve when our Clean AER Project is completed. On a ‘modeled’ basis, there is currently no technical solution to get us to the proposed new standard of approximately 38 ppb. This means if the SO2 standard is decreased to less than 40 ppb on a modeled basis, there will be a dramatic additional impact on requirements to curtail production to ensure compliance with only marginal environmental improvement. This impact on production could have drastic implications on the ongoing viability of our processing facilities within the province.

The proposed value for the Upper Risk Threshold (URT) is overly conservative. During consultation held to date, the Ministry has consistently noted that there is an expectation that affected industries would use the Site-Specific Standard process. Vale consistently responded that a very low URT would make the process for obtaining a site-specific standard more difficult and that the MOECC should follow its published guidance for setting the URT at 10X the standard. In this case the URT would be 400 ppb. The MOECC proposes 250 ppb (690 ug/m3) for the following reason:

“since the current air standard for SO2 is representative of a concentration which is protective against adverse health effects on the general population but not sensitive populations, the URT is proposed to be set at the level of the current SO2 air standards”

This rationale can be used to justify a range of possible URT values including 400 ppb, or higher. Setting a value for the URT at less than 10X the standard simply has the effect of making it harder to obtain a site-specific standard. The MOECC has already made the current proposal conservative by setting a very low standard and does not need to add a further conservative URT. Note, the URT comes into effect immediately and it is not known how this would impact current business practices in the short-term, but it would most certainly be negative.

A site-specific standard is not the answer. The MOECC consistently states that the site-specific standard (SSS) process is available to any emitter that is unable to meet new, lower air quality standards.
As compliance tool, the SSS is regarded by the MOECC as a mechanism to allow for more time in order to get into compliance through an action plan. In this case, Vale cannot invest in further emissions reduction projects (i.e. action plan) when billions in mines investment is critical for Vale to continue to have a viable operation. Furthermore, there is no technical solution at our smelters to get to the proposed new standard, so a SSS does not make sense in this regard. The complexities here are numerous and include difficulty communicating internally and externally about a standard that is seemingly less protective than the rest of the Province. In addition, a SSS does not offer the degree of certainty a long-term mine investment requires.

If the Ministry took an ‘airshed’ approach – there would be no issue in Sudbury. In the Sarnia area, SO2 is one of a number of contaminants of concern for human health in the area. It has its unique challenge with respect to the fact there are multiple operations within a small geographic area, where total volume emissions is a problem. In Sudbury’s case, there are two smelters in a very large geographic area and not nearly the volumes of emissions. Given the two very different airsheds, a solution in Sarnia should look different than a solution in Northern Ontario.

Vale previously submitted two sets of comments on the Science Discussion Document on June 14, 2016 and October 21, 2016. These comments are included in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 of this letter.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. We trust you will consider our submission.

Conor Spollen

Appendix 1
Vale Canada Science Discussion Document Additional Comments December, 2017

Rounding of the values for the standards: The MOECC has discussed various values during the consultation stages for the standards and has consistently expressed concentration in parts per billion (ppb). The proposed standard to date was 40 ppb. However, in the posting, the standard has been rounded to 100 ug/m3, which is 36 ppb. This rounding approach reduces the proposed standard by an additional 10% (similar for the annual standard). This rounding has real-world implications and the standard should be converted to 110 ug/m3 to be consistent with values quoted to date.
Five-Year Phase-in Period for the Standard: A five-year phase-in is far too short to implement any significant emission reductions for SO2. Industries that emit SO2 tend to have large, complex processes that require long-lead times to design, procure and install capital equipment. A minimum phase-in of seven years is suggested.
Standards apply everywhere regardless of land-use: The MOECC’s main tool for determining compliance with air standards is dispersion modeling. Although land-use is used to select meteorological data, the resultant ground level concentrations calculated by the dispersion models is not compared against a standard that is representative of the land use. For example, the annual standard is developed giving consideration to very sensitive lichen. However, the annual standard is applied to urban and agricultural areas. If a proponent exceeds the annual standard in an urban area, it would be expected to reduce emissions despite the lack of sensitive lichen. This adds an unnecessary level of conservatism to the implementation of air quality standards. Similarly, the one-hour health-based standard aimed at sensitive asthmatics is applied in non-urban area. Given the level of conservatism built into the proposed standards, additional conservatism is not required through the application of the standards.
Annual standard based on sensitive lichen species: There is no supporting documentation provided to indicate if the most sensitive lichen species upon which the annual standard is based are present or native across the entire province. If these species are not native to an area, selecting a standard relative to that species is overly conservative. Lichen are also sensitive to soil type and chemistry. There are many technical considerations that could be used to justify annual standards that vary by location across the province.

Appendix 2
Vale Canada Science Discussion Document Comments Previously Submitted June 14, 2016

June 14, 2016

James Gilmore, Ph.D.
Air Standards and Risk Assessment Coordinator, Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Standards Development Branch
Human Toxicology and Air Standards Division
40 St. Clair Ave. West, Floor 7
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1M2

Email : James.Gilmore@Ontario.ca

Dear Dr. Gilmore:

This letter provides input from Vale Canada on the Science Discussion Document on
Development of Air Standards for Sulphur Dioxide, EBR Registry # 012-7192.

Vale is committed to the protection of human health and the environment from the effects of sulphur dioxide (SO2) from its operations in Sudbury. This commitment is demonstrated by the continued execution of the Clean AER project and Single Furnace Upgrade project at a time of extreme financial constraint at Vale and the mining industry worldwide. Upon completion, Vale will have reduced its annual SO2 emissions by 85% from today’s levels, to approximately 20 kilotonnes per year. We note that between 2013 and 2015 there were only 3 to 4 measured exceedences per year of the hourly standard of 250 ppb over the entire 18 station Sudbury community monitoring network; the impacts on community air quality will be further significantly reduced by these projects. The technology applied at the Copper Cliff Smelter will result in it being ranked among the best worldwide with respect to SO2 capture, meeting proposed federal emission standards for a new smelter. This long-term investment was expected to result in compliance with the MOECC air standard for SO2 and we are concerned that the MOECC is embarking on a new round of air standard changes that will ensure continued non-compliance. We are also concerned about the future anticipated changes to NOx standards once the federal CAAQS for NO2 is adopted. The outcome of consultations on the implementation of a new SO2 standard will surely impact the implementation of a new NOx standard and we encourage the MOECC to conduct a thorough consultation on the new SO2 standard as this will inform the NOx consultation in the future.

The MOECC provides Science Discussion Documents (SDD) with the intention that only the scientific aspects of the information provided in the SDD would be referenced, but due to the complex format of the Ontario air standard process under Reg. 419, we find it necessary to provide some comment on the potential relationship between the AAQC and the POI standard here. We will provide additional comments on the implementation when the proposed SO2 standard is posted on the EBR for comment.

At this time, our comments include the following:

1) The epidemiological evidence linking SO2 concentrations to health effects tends to be weak due to the complex nature of both exposures in the environment and the health effects data used to infer relationships. Table 5.2 of the SDD highlights this fact, with only short-term respiratory morbidity being meaningfully causally linked to SO2 monitoring data. Health Canada’s proposed 10-minute RfC of 67 ppb reflects that the epidemiological analysis is unable to identify a consensus benchmark concentration that could represent an AAQC. The AAQC would therefore be based on human experimental chamber data with an application of an uncertainty factor of 6 (the explanation for which is provided by the MOECC in the SDD, not by HC) and then adjusted to a 1-hour value of 40 ppb. We agree with other stakeholders (Canadian Fuels Association) that there is no need to convert the 10-minute RfC to a 1-hour RfC, and that the 1-hour RfC should be 67 ppb, which is a health-protective value.

2) Given the highly conservative nature of the modeling approaches required by O.Reg. 419, we suggest that it would be scientifically appropriate to implement air standards that differentiate between values that could be applied in the air shed (AAQCs) versus those that would apply (modeled) at the POI (i.e. the standard should be higher than the AAQC).

3) The SDD summarizes information from other regulatory agencies, primarily the US EPA’s Sulfur Oxides Assessment of 2008, and Health Canada’s January, 2016 Human Health Risk Assessment of Sulphur Dioxide. These exhaustive reports point to cardiovascular, reproductive and developmental, and prenatal and neonatal outcomes as areas of potential concern and future research. The SDD asks (section 7.8) if there are any relevant and critical information not addressed in the SDD which could influence the development of a short-term air standard for sulphur dioxide. We propose that the Ministry evaluate its own historical monitoring data coupled with the Ministry of Health’s historical data on rates of asthma, cardiovascular, reproductive and developmental, and prenatal and neonatal outcomes from several Ontario cities, including Sudbury, which had historically elevated ambient SO2 concentrations well above current levels. Such data analyses would surely provide relevant context for the development of an updated AAQC and standard for SO2 emissions from Ontario’s targeted industrial sector.

4) We support a standard that varies by time of day. Most of the science discussion is focused on exposure to humans, especially extremely sensitive ones undertaking exercise or strenuous activity. Based on the likelihood of exposure in this extremely limited scenario, a night-time standard could be proposed related to exposure under resting conditions or undertaking less strenuous activities. To this end, there are fewer references to studies related to these exposure conditions for asthmatics, healthy or unhealthy individuals and more information should be presented in this regard.

5) We support the development of standards that relate more specifically to the location of the
emitting facility. For example, protection of the environment could be a more relevant endpoint
for a remote facility rather than the protection of human receptors adjacent to the facility. To this end, the science document focuses primarily on human health and is lacking with respect to
effects on vegetation except for lichen (European variety) and a sensitive sub-species of white
pine. Without this science-based discussion, further discussion about implementation issues will
be more difficult for emitting facilities. In addition, there is a large library of information authored
by MOECC experts about impacts of SO2 on vegetation in Northern Ontario. We recommend that these reports and publications be reviewed and incorporated into the science document to
provide an alternative compliance path for circumstances where it might be appropriate.

6) Implementation issues yet to be addressed include the selection of a URT and how to implement new requirements around Transitional Operating Conditions (TOCs). URT selection should be science-based, not policy-based, and implementation of these two items could involve use of different health or environmental endpoints than the ones discussed in the science document. Discussion of other endpoints should be included in the science document that would be relevant to these implementation issues.

In addition to these comments, we also support the comments about the science submitted by
the Canadian Fuels Association. We look forward to providing further input during this
consultation.

Finally, Vale Canada Limited notes the short timeline provided for review of the SDD. The
CCME SO2 CAAQS document has not yet been released, and HC risk assessment has only
been released in February. We feel that the MOECC’s proposed timeline for review of the
scientific literature cited in the SDD by stakeholders was very aggressive and did not allow Vale
to respond adequately to the SDD. We will therefore provide more detailed comments in
response to the rationale document when it is released.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Yours sincerely,

Mike Dutton, PhD, DABT
Manager, Environmental Health Science, Vale Base Metals
2060 Flavelle Blvd.
Mississauga, Ontario L5K 1Z9 Canada
Tel: +1 905-403-2620 Mob: +1 416 725 9533 Email: mike.dutton@vale.com

cc: Tareq Al-Zabet MOECC, Steve Klose, MOECC; Julie Schroeder, MOECC; Cathy Grant, MOECC; Frank Javor, Vale

Appendix 3
Vale Canada Science Discussion Document Comments Previously Submitted June 14, 2016

October 21, 2016

Dr. Tareq Al-Zabet
Assistant Deputy Minister
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Environmental Sciences and Standards Division
135 St. Clair Ave. West, Floor 14
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 1P5

Email :tareq.al-zabet@ontario.ca

Dear Dr. Al-Zabet:

This letter provides input from Vale Canada on the Science Discussion Document on Development of Air Standards for Sulphur Dioxide, EBR Registry # 012-7192. We provided a number of comments in a previous letter (June 14, 2016) and we would like to expand on our brief comment regarding selection of an Upper Risk Threshold (URT) for SO2.

Vale is committed to the protection of human health and the environment from the effects of sulphur dioxide (SO2) from its operations in Sudbury. This commitment is demonstrated by the continued execution of the Clean AER project and Single Furnace Upgrade project at a time of extreme financial constraint at Vale and the mining industry worldwide. Upon completion, Vale will have reduced its annual SO2 emissions by 85% from today’s levels, to approximately 20 kilotonnes per year. We note that between 2013 and 2015 there were only 3 to 4 measured exceedences per year of the current hourly standard of 250 ppb over the entire 18 station Sudbury community monitoring network. In fact, during this three year period, on a measured basis, the proposed 70 ppb hourly standard was met more than 99.3% of the time at each station, and even the 40 ppb level was met more than 98% of the time. The impacts on community air quality will be further significantly reduced by these projects. The technology applied at the Copper Cliff Smelter will result in it being ranked among the best worldwide with respect to SO2 capture, meeting proposed federal emission standards for a new smelter. Despite this improvement, it is unlikely that the Copper Cliff Smelter would meet the hourly standards suggested in the Science Discussion Document using the standard regulatory modeling tools and guidance nor is there an obvious route to achieving the standard at some point in the future. We fully expect our monitored data in the future to show much better results than the modelled results, much the same as today’s situation.

Although it is too early to determine the final value of the hourly standard, we would like to reiterate our previously stated comment related to the URT. In the Guide for Implementation of Air Standards in Ontario (GIASO) document that was published at the inception of O.Reg. 419/05, the URT concept was introduced as a threshold to be used in the site-specific standard process. The following graphic was presented in the GIASO and was used in subsequent MOECC presentations.

Considering that SO2 is a non-carcinogen, MOECC policy normally would be to select a URT that is 10X the standard. It is important that the MOECC follow this policy because to do otherwise jeopardizes the ability of emitters such as Vale to obtain and maintain a site-specific air standard, if one is required. MOECC has not followed this policy for some previous air standards choosing instead to implement the existing or current standard as the URT resulting in a URT with an overly conservative risk quotient. The justifications provided at the time were very brief and not supported by science or policy. In general, the consultation documents developed when new standards are implemented contain very brief, if any, substantive discussion about the selection of the URT despite the importance it plays in the site-specific standard process. We urge the MOECC to include more detailed discussion about the URT selection, especially when it is set at values lower than normal policy would dictate. Setting the URT in accordance with existing policy allows for a more constructive interaction in the regulation of industry.

Considering that there are many levels of conservatism contained in the standard itself and further conservatism within the air dispersion modeling, there is no need for additional conservatism in the URT.
In addition to these comments, we also support the additional comments about the science submitted by the Canadian Fuels Association and the Canadian Steel Producers Association. We look forward to providing further input during this consultation and will submit further comments to address the forthcoming EBR posting.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Dutton, PhD, DABT
Manager, Environmental Health Science, Vale Base Metals
2060 Flavelle Blvd.
Mississauga, Ontario L5K 1Z9 Canada
Tel: +1 905-403-2429 Mob: +1 416 725 9533
Email: mike.dutton@vale.com

cc:Sarah Paul, MOECC; Julie Schroeder, MOECC; Cathy Grant, MOECC
Frank Javor, Vale; Bruce Mikkila, Vale

[Original Comment ID: 211495]