Attention: Lubna I. Hussain…

Attention: Lubna I. Hussain; Manager, Environmental Sciences and Standards Division, Standards Development Branch, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change.

Comments on Policy Proposal: Regulatory amendments related to air emissions of sulphur dioxide and other items; 2017-10-27 EBR Registry Number 013-0903

Submitted by: Victims of Chemical Valley (VOCV); Sarnia, ON

Note:
VOCV is an organization rooted in workers’ health. We comment because we feel that elevated ambient levels of SO2 put workers and their families and communities at additional risk, beyond what they might experience at work.
People in industrial cities are doubly burdened by the combination of high background and high workplace exposures which are often more concentrated versions of the background contaminant.
Our comments on the proposed SO2 standards and related proposals are made in relation to emissions from refiners and to some extent in context of community exposure, especially industrial communities.
We agree with the province that managing air contaminants for public health requires a multi-facetted approach. We feel that it is important to see how the new science behind this proposal might impact other regulations or standards. We are particularly interested in OELs (occupational exposure limits): how background contaminants affect workplace practices, and how well the OELs reflect new information. We have also made comments in this document on the association between SO2 and PM2.5 (solid and gaseous).
We thank you for your attention to our comments.
The writer, a VOCV volunteer and NO expert, asks for your patience while reviewing these comments. Where the ideas are not clear, or you want more information please feel free to contact:
Therese Hutchinson, writer, at t_m_hutchinson@yahoo.com for:
Victims of Chemical Valley,
Ada Lockridge; Co-Chair
Sandra Kinart; Co-Chair

Regulation Proposal Notice; Description of the Regulation
VOCV rejects the adoption of a phase in period mentioned in this section of the document. Some refiners in Ontario have enjoyed a relative competitive advantage for a decade because their emissions performance has lagged behind companies who have been regulated at levels that protect human health. Given the extent of the emissions reduction required for some refiners to meet health-based emission levels and their own emission commitments, as well as the unacceptable history of exposures in communities surrounding them, it is imperative that gross emitters make immediate and significant reductions and that they are fully compliant within 5 years.
VOCV has made comments on the proposal to set regionally less stringent standards under item titled 2. Air Standards for SO2
Regulation Proposal Notice; Purpose of Regulation
The Regulatory Proposal Notice, under the section titled Purpose of Regulation, states that
“Air standards are used to assess the contributions of contaminant to air by regulated facilities and may trigger investments…… that improve air quality over time”.
VOCV believes that this understanding of the purpose of regulation is fundamentally flawed. Regulations should control the contribution of contaminants to air by regulated facilities, meeting legal obligations and ensuring that the environmental-health indicators on which the regulation is based are protected.
Ontario’s approach does not seem to be consistent with commitments to continuous improvement. It creates a level which industry can ‘pollute up to’, like a vacuum for an industry to fill. Industry can, using inferior technology, fill that vacuum and there is no incentive to continuously improve the inferior technology. Other jurisdictions simply require industry to use the best available technology in order to achieve the lowest possible emission.
1.Ambient Air Quality Criteria
VOCV supports the 1 hr/100mg/m3 standard, but because of limited knowledge can only question the decision do make a 10 min/67ppb. We see that the EPA has 3 hr/50 ppb.
We also think that the discussion of Proposed Amendments to O.Reg 350 apply to these comments, in that without a 3 hr equivalent to the EPA NAAQS it may be wise to retain a rolling 24 hr standard especially in industrial communities.
Ontario sets AAQCs at a health based reference level and addresses achievability and economic issues through technology-based standards. For the sake of transparency and public access to the air management process it is essential that any standards or adjustments to standards take place in the public arena.
Finally, VOCV will take this opportunity to voice a complaint against monitoring and reporting protocols that set standards for inclusion at ‘communities with populations > 100,000’. This is true of CAAQS monitoring protocols and it may impact other aspects of air management. VOCV recommends that relevant regulation and guidance be up-dated to include the inclusion of any location with a heavy emitter as a required location for monitoring and reporting of ambient air quality.
2. Air Standards for SO2
VOCV does not understand the complexity of Ontario’s air management system where-in compliance is determined by modeling, and allowable emissions could vary depending upon the concentration in the environment, processes, and inputs. Compliance with certificates issued under modeled conditions can only be verified in retrospect by monitoring which is too late to catch health impacts.
In 2005 refiners, including Ontario’s, championed an `alternative’ process for emissions management. The goal was to accomplish regulatory harmonization across the provinces and with the United States. Rather than create a complex set of regulations our industry proposed that they simply match the U.S. emission performance. The refining sector suggested it, helped to develop a process, and have subsequently advocated its use as a Base Level Industrial Emissions Requirement under CEPA.
VOCV has supported the use of this alternative emissions management process because it commits refiners to matching emissions performance under a stringent, health-based regulatory regime.
Unfortunately some refiners have failed to meet the commitments established under the process, consistently for 10 years. Benchmarking analysis in 2003, 2005, 2011, 2017 show that some of Ontario refiners continuously emitted at levels egregious beyond what their U.S. counterparts were and are emitting. Although some reductions have been achieved these emitters never approached the emission reductions that they committed to.
VOCV concludes that Ontario’s air management system has not been able to effectively drive the reductions that were committed to by industry themselves. We have no confidence in this system or any regulatory approach that fails to produce either: convergence of emissions performance with that of the United States’s health-based, regulation driven system, or has equipment based standards that are equivalent to that system.
Up-dated benchmarking in 2017 shows that convergence will require a reduction of approximately 18,000t/y of SO2. That is a health-based emission level that refiners and provinces across Canada and the US have been able to achieve. That is the least stringent of the possible interpretations of ‘equivalency/ convergence’ with U.S. emission performance. We reject any approach that fails to produce that result and we expect that Ontario would require no less than that result for the protection of citizens.
It would be instructive, given the unusual format of Ontario’s air management system, to know what the emissions reductions from refiners (and other sources) might be under the proposed changes.
The proposed time line for phase in of these standards is un-necessary. Given the amount of work required by the refining sector and the amount of time that they have had to achieve their stated emissions targets, the regulations should be implemented immediately. The bulk of reductions should be undertaken immediately and be completely compliant within 5 years.
3.Transitional Operating Conditions
VOCV has supported the inclusion of TOC into emissions reporting and regulation and is pleased to see it being undertaken. A general comment arising from the EBR posting document (013-0903) is that we cannot understand from any of the discussion documents how this approach will:
“aid in the prevention of incidents…….”
We are very interested in how the Ministry sees that happening.
We do understand how it will (not ‘potentially will’) lead to reductions in SO2 emissions from refineries. It is clear from the prior stakeholder feedback listed (Discussion Paper on Proposed Regulatory Changes Related to Transitional Operating Conditions; s5 Stake holder Input.) that refiners believe that this approach will capture emissions that put them out of compliance with Ontario’s regulations. It is over-due that Ontario acknowledges those emissions and their impairment of ambient air quality around refineries.
Discussion Paper on Proposed Regulatory changes to Transitional Operating Conditions
2.Background It is unclear from the Chapter 8.3 excerpt whether processes can be modelled in a way that results in TOC that are routine and infrequent, but occur across many different parts of the plant and constantly across time (i.e. multiple sources emitting routinely at different times). This is an area the VOCV where has no technical knowledge, but it seems a potential weakness in the proposal if these go unreported at the Directors discretion.
3.Rational for the Proposed Policy and Regulatory Amendments Given the information provided in the policy proposal document and this document 3 (d), it may be instructive to add,
•Another aim is to correct under reporting of emissions and potential POI exceedances because of inconsistent application of the Guideline,
to the bullet list of rationale.
a)Types of Contaminants
Contaminants with Acute Effects VOCV is very concerned that the length of time taken to up-date air standards to excessive, given ready access to research supporting new standards. The standards noted in Schedule 3 of the Regulation as being out-dated and not protective must be corrected immediately, and not after years of consultation. The Regulation is ineffective as a health protection measure in the air management strategy if the standards are out of date and not protective.
b)Identifying Contaminants for TOC / Other Contaminants
We support the intent to reduce SO2, however did not participate in the process that identified it as a priority target. It would be instructive to know what the Reviewers determined to focus on, subsequent to this ‘initial focus’ on SO2.

VOCV supports a triaged approach to air quality management. We understand that there are inter-provincial, federal and international commitments relating to air management. However we maintain that the primary objective in air management must be health- protection and depending upon the emitter and its suite of pollutants, local and regional health protection may not always align with other air policy priorities.

VOCV supports the use of a health based prioritization approach to managing Ontario’s air emissions. The local populations around industrial emitters must not bear the cost of achieving large background reductions or of meeting other policy targets. A health based prioritization system would identify the emissions with the highest level of health impact, and combine contaminants that have like end-points to produce the most effective emissions reductions.

7. Questions for Stakeholders
i) TOC Contaminants Questions posed concerning other contaminants that should and/or could be included in the TOC policy are beyond VOCV’s expertise. However, having past experience with identification of health based emissions priorities, VOCV is confident that there are consultants who can easily produce a defensible list of TOC contaminants for regulation. VOCV would like to be involved in that process.
ii) Operating Conditions VOCV repeats that these technical questions are beyond the knowledge of most stakeholders and fall into the realm of provincial responsibility for researching its jurisdictional responsibilities. Comments received from this EBR posting should not be considered full-some consultation on the matter. VOCV will rely on the intent of the proposal, that is, to identify condition of greatest emissions, to direct the selection of definition of capacity.

Comments Specific To The Proposed Amending Regulation- Consultation Draft
(1.1), (1.3).3 VOCV would like to see a focus on various input scenarios for refineries that use a variety of fuels, and output or product lines. This may be an over the top request but given our limited technical knowledge we would like to understand that the process for selecting scenarios and loading models includes all possible variables.
(1.4) VOCV would like the ministry to consider that the Director may require a specific scenario even though the scenario does not result in the highest concentration of the contaminant at a p.o.i., but that frequency of scenario events, or co-releases may make it a priority. Section (1.5) does not seem to over-rule S. (1.4). We feel that (1.4) should not be limited to highest concentration scenarios.
(1.7).3 Verification of whether the selected scenario for modeling is the worst condition should not be left to ‘the person’. The ministry should provide guidance and oversite on this.
(1.7).4 VOCV believes ant this provides an opportunity for an emitter to explain why their chosen scenario, which does not represent the highest concentration at POI, to be used as an alternative regulatory instrument.
Addition of amendment Incident-specific ESDM report:
VOCV believes that when there is a contravention of the regulation or standard that a report is not optional. The proposed regulation should exclude discretionary language here.
The proposed amendment numbered 24.1 (2)(a) makes explicit that multiple contaminants need not be reported, only the regulated substance. VOCV does not agree with reporting single contaminates from a release. A health impact analysis of Sarnia refinery emissions, undertaken for the NFPRER, showed that the combination of BTEX was the primary CAC of concern. It is well established that individual effect is elevated when the substance is part of a toxic combination.

Other Comments
PM2.5 air contaminants, both solid and gaseous, have health risks associated with even small increments. Monitoring data indicate that the province exceeds the CAAQS for PM2.5, typically in Hamilton, Windsor and Sarnia which are all heavy industrial cities. Communities burdened by particulate emissions are routinely assured that control of SO2 will bring down the threatening PM levels because PM2.5 has a strong signal correlation to SO2.
VOCV would like assurance that new SO2 standards will indeed resolve the PM problems in Sarnia and Hamilton. If the proposed standards do not address the PM problem, then VOCV would recommend that an alternative method of controlling SO2 which will also control PM be derived, such as equipment-based regulation.

[Original Comment ID: 211529]