Approvals Reform

Ministry of the Environment Assessment and Approvals

On Thursday November 12, 1998 the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch of the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) held a one-day information seminar on Approvals Reform. The new and proposed regulations and approvals reforms are summarized below. Also included are comments on how these changes may affect your company.

Ontario Regulation 524/98 – Certificate of Approval Exemptions – Air

Section 3 of O. Reg. 346, General Air Pollution, has been revoked and replaced with O. Reg 524/98. The acronym adopted for this regulation is AER for Approval Exemption Regulation. In the past, basically anything that discharged contaminants to the natural environment required a CofA. As well, most alterations required an amendment, revocation, or a new permit.

AERs unconditionally exempt specific activities that pose no significant risk of environmental impact from approvals. Some exemptions that may be relevant to industry include:

On-site construction equipment

• Building air intakes

• Uncontaminated exhaust ventilation

• Food & beverage preparation – restaurants

• Aqueous cleaning operations

• Fire fighting/training

If you are planning to install or operate any of the above, a CofA may not be required. If you have CofA’s for these or similar types of equipment you must continue to comply with the terms and conditions. In all cases you must comply with the EPA and in particular with O.Reg.346.

Ontario Regulation 363/98 – Certificate of Approval – Fees

On October 1, 1998 O. Reg. 363/98 came into effect. This regulation specifies a new fee structure designed to more accurately offset the application review costs and to partially offset other MOE resources that support the approval process. The fee structure is broken down into:

A – Administrative Processing

B – Fixed Costs for the Review

C – Emission Summary Review

D – Noise Assessment Review

Fee structures are provided for a variety of amendments and new applications. The fees are based on the specific nature and amount of equipment being installed, the number of other sources included in the emission inventory, prior inventory reviews, and noise impact. As you may recall, previous CofA application costs were 2% of the capital equipment costs. Calculation of the new permitting cost has not been simplified. Applications or amendments will vary from as low as $100 to thousands of dollars. For example, the installation of 4 paint spray booths in a new facility would cost $200 plus 4 times $400 for a total of $1800. If there were 6 existing sources at the plant, an inventory review may be required, and the cost would go up to $2800. If the proposed equipment is not categorized, the cost per unit would be $1200 which, given the same scenario as above, raises the application costs to $5000 to $6000.

Proposed – Standardized Approval Regulations

The proposed Standardized Approval Regulations or SARs are conditional exemptions from approval requirements. There are strict limitations and SARs are suited to equipment or activities that have predictable and controllable environmental impacts. Operation under a SAR requires submission of a start-up notice to the MOE that includes a description and location of the work and specific information verifying that the SAR criteria has been met. On-site, the company must maintain technical records prepared by a licensed Professional Engineer (P.Eng.). Proposed equipment or activities that would qualify to operate under a SAR include:

• Emergency generator sets

• Combustion equipment

• Ethylene oxide sterilizers

• Arc welding ventilation equipment

• Equipment Modifications

There are limitations to each of the above and compliance with the SAR criteria must be verified in writing by a P.Eng.

Industry may find SARAs useful when applied to frequently modified equipment or processes. However, the equipment must be approved, the principle of operation must remain the same, regulated contaminant emissions must not increase, and new emissions generated as a result of the modifications, must be below certain emission criteria. As well, an air emission summary and dispersion modelling report, prepared by a P.Eng., will be required.

New Reporting Requirements Under Regulation 346

Previously in Ontario, when applying for an operating permit to discharge air contaminants, the four page application was submitted with the emission summary and compliance status tables. Although requirements existed for the inclusion of a site wide inventory, they were rarely enforced. However, the MOE reported that their review engineers were spending disproportionate amounts of time on some applications, presumably due to incomplete submissions. As a result, the MOE has issued an explicit protocol titled "Procedure for Preparing an Air Emission Summary & Dispersion Modelling Report".

Requirements of this protocol are far reaching. Most important to industry is the necessity of considering all sources on-site that emit the same contaminants as the proposed installation or modification. For example, if your proposed operation generates particulate matter, all other sources on-site that discharge particulate matter must be reported in the emission summary. It is expected that most companies will find this to be time consuming and difficult depending upon their in-house technical expertise. As well, all data submitted with the application now requires a quality classification code that indicates the degree of certainly in the emission numbers. The MOE has indicated that poor quality data will be closely scrutinized, especially in the case of marginal compliance.

One last point regarding the revised reporting requirements. Previously, if a proposed contaminant emission did not have a standard POI limit, you were not required to report it. Now, all emissions from the process must be included if they pose a significant health and environmental risk. Analysis of the possible health effects may well necessitate the services of a professional occupational hygienist (i.e. CIH).

Commentary of the Approvals Reforms

A number of new Approvals Reform initiatives have been proposed and recently implemented. The AERs will reduce some of the MOE approval load but they will have little usefulness for most industrial clients. SARs, if adopted, provide another avenue for operation of equipment without extensive permitting requirements. However, the on-site documentation, prepared by a Professional Engineer, will not reduce the in-house reporting load.

The new Air Emissions Summary & Dispersion Modelling Report now mandated requires consideration of all emission sources. This will prove to be costly and time consuming for companies that do not have well qualified, and quantified emission data. Equipment suppliers and installers who may have prepared CofA’s in the past may now be unqualified. In-house personnel may not have the resources to measure or accurately estimate the process emissions from old, non-permitted, sources. Most importantly, companies may discover that they are operating out-of-compliance when all of the emission sources are considered together.

The new fee structure is an improvement to the old system from an environmental perspective. Based on the old system, the company was financially penalized for installing expensive equipment that reduced emissions. Now, the costs are supposedly tied to the effort required to assess the application. Although this approach seems reasonable, it is suspected the level of MOE review will be greatly diminished due to the new reporting protocols, in spite of the increased fees.

Although Approval Reforms are welcomed, it appears most of the streamlining is designed to benefit the regulatory process. The promulgated and proposed exemptions will not reduce the reporting requirements for industry since demonstration of compliance, signed by a P.Eng., is required.

©Pinchin Environmental Newsletter 2001 - Disclaimer