Questions and Answers.
Below are frequently asked questioned related to air permitting and modelling in Ontario. The questions were posed by Air Practitioners' with responses developed in collaboration with the MOECP.
|
Below are frequently asked questioned related to air permitting and modelling in Ontario. The questions were posed by Air Practitioners' with responses developed in collaboration with the MOECP.
|
Q: Can you please provide guidance when an Acoustic Assessment Report is required?
A: According to previous guidance, if a facility was more than 500 metres or 1,000 metres (depending on the equipment) from a Point of Reception (POR), it would not usually require any noise assessment (beyond the required documentation demonstrating the separation distance). This wording was lost in the recent guidance updates, although the screening capability still applies and the wording will be restored to future updates. A facility closer to a POR than the 500 metre or 1,000 metre separation distance may also screen out by using one of the ministry’s Primary Noise Screening (aka the Noise Screening Process) or Secondary Noise Screening approaches. If the facility is unable to screen out through the 500 metre or 1,000 metre separation distance, Primary Noise Screening or Secondary Noise Screening, an Acoustic Assessment Report will be required to support the application. The Abbreviated Acoustic Assessment approach is still under development and is not generally available for use by applicants. Finally, in response to noise complaints, the ministry may require an Acoustic Assessment Report to be submitted for a facility that appeared to screen out, since compliance is related to actual noise impacts at PORs, rather than separation distances or screening estimates. In addition, applicants may choose to submit an Acoustic Assessment Report for review to ensure their proposed noise emissions are compliant, rather than relying on the screening approach. The ministry’s guidance documents are currently undergoing updates to ensure consistency with NPC-300 and future updates will also reflect the above guidance. Q: The Primary Noise Screening Form applies to facilities with specific NAICS codes. Can I use the screening form for facilities with other NAICS codes? What are the situations under which I can use the screening form or which I cannot use the screening form? A: If the facility does not satisfy the NAICS codes listed on the Primary Noise Screening form, it may still qualify for the screening if all of the major equipment on the site is referenced in Question 3 and the site does not include any of the equipment listed in Table 1.2. The Primary Noise Screening form must include a cover letter for consideration by the ministry, indicating that all of the major equipment on the site is referenced in Question 3 and the site does not include any of the equipment listed in Table 1.2. Q: I noticed that in my renewed Environmental Compliance Approval with Limited Operational Flexibility (ECA with LOF), previously called Basic Comprehensive C of A, the Maximum Concentration Level Assessment (MCLA) Request process has removed the condition that if I do not receive a reply from the Director within 30 days after my request has been acknowledged by the ministry, I could consider that MCLA accepted by the ministry. Why is the change? Besides, I am concerned about the impact of this change on my planned modifications. A: The ministry has recently re-visited the MCLA Request process prescribed in an ECA with LOF and concluded that, from a legal perspective, the Director must render a decision on the MCLA Request for the MCLA considered as a Performance Limit. Therefore the ministry has amended the relevant conditions in the ECA to reflect this revised position. The ministry is committed to deliver improved environmental protection and better client service. The ministry’s record indicates that the MCLA Request process prescribed in ECAs with LOF has been working well with all decisions being made within 30 days of the date that the submission is acknowledged. With the new process in place, the ministry is committed to continue to provide timely feedback on MCLA requests. Furthermore, the ministry is continually looking into means to expedite the processing of the MCLA Request process. In case you have not received a response from the ministry in 30 days after your MCLA request has been acknowledged, you could contact the ministry on status of your request. Q: What references can be considered “standard” in an ECA Application? How do I deal with non-standard references? A: References used in an ECA application should be available to the ministry for technical review. Many references are “standards” (e.g. AP42). The ESDM guide, in Procedure Table C-1 provides a list of “standard” references that do not need to be included in an ESDM. If any references are used that are not in the standard list, either the web link or a copy of the reference should be included in the ESDM. Q: Can noise screening be used to apply for an ECA with Limited Operational Flexibility? Page 53 of the ECA guide (left hand column, about ½ way down page), indicates “Furthermore, note that an AAR is required if the applicant applies for an ECA with Limited Operational Flexibility. In such a case you cannot use a SNS process or A-AAR”. A: This statement is not correct. An application for Limited Operational Flexibility would be able to screen out by submitting the required documentation for the 500 metres or 1,000 metres separation distance, Primary Noise Screening or Secondary Noise Screening. Q: What is the best way to indicate a Request for Limited Operational Flexibility on the Application Form? A: There has been confusion in the current application form in terms of EBR postings when an amendment application is submitted for an ECA with Limited Operational Flexibility. The request for the LOF is not always noticed, and can sometimes lead to an EBR posting that does not reference the LOF. Revised EBR wording would have to be reposted before the application could be approved. Applicants should note the LOF in the Exec Summary section on the application form. Also, the applicant should track the EBR posting to ensure that the LOF is included. If not, contact MOE immediately. Q: When is it correct to use NO2 and/or total NOx (expressed as NO2) in an ECA Application or Environmental Assessment? A: Nitrogen oxides are one of the few compounds where the form of the substance is different for Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) and O.Reg. 419 Standards. The AAQC is based only on for NO2. The O.Reg. 419 standard is based on total NOx (i.e. NO plus NO2) expressed as NO2. It can be confusing, since the AAQC and the standard both have the same numerical value. For environmental assessments, impacts are usually assessed against NO2 only. For ECA applications, the assessment must be done against total NOx emitted (NO/NO2) to demonstrate compliance with the O. Reg. 419/05 standards. Q: How do we deal with errors in calculating fees in the new form? How do we deal with fields that “must” be completed even if not appropriate for the type of application? A: There have been a number of reported instances where the form calculates the fees incorrectly or fields become a “must fill” where not appropriate for the type of application. As with any smart form, MOE has not been able to test all possibilities. If fee errors are encountered in the application form or inappropriate field errors occur, describe the circumstances that lead to the errors to MOE. Fixing errors in the application form does not require regulatory changes; send the issue to Approvals Branch, general inquiry e-mail at [email protected]. Please note that the Ministry will assess the application including the submitted fee and as a result of the assessment, the fee may change. If you complete the ECA application form on paper, you will have to calculate the fee manually using the available the Minister’s Requirement for Fees – Application Fees for ECA under the EPA. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
April 2019
Categories |