All comments received during the comment period, whether by email, regular mail, or the EBR website were considered as part of the decision making process by the Ministry of the Environment.
Seven comments were received from industry, public health groups and environmental organizations.
In August 2009, the MOE also held stakeholder consultation meetings in Toronto and by teleconference. The meetings were attended by industry, public health and environmental organizations and provided an opportunity for stakeholders to provide comments and ask questions of government representatives.
The following is a summary of the major comments and how they were considered by the Ministry in finalizing the Foundry - Industry Standard.
1. SMELTERS OF ANY TYPE SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO BE PART OF THE FOUNDRY – INDUSTRY STANDARD.
Comment: Some Public Health Units (PHUs) felt that the smelting operations should not be considered as part of the technical standard.
Response: The Foundry – Industry Standard is limited to only foundries under NAICS code 3315 and specifically excludes secondary lead smelters.
2. TECHNICAL STANDARD MAY NOT BE DRIVING CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT.
Comment: Concerns were raised that the Technical Standard may not be driving continuous improvement.
Response: Comments regarding continuous improvement were considered and the proposal was amended to require the development of annual reports to be received by the highest ranking employee at the foundry. They include:
- Operating Parameter Summary Table;
- Deviation Summary Table;
- Implementation Summary Table;
- Complaint Summary Table;
- List of Changes to sources, pollution control equipment and ventilation systems; and,
- Changes to the written description of the ventilation systems.
The intent of these requirements is to help the highest ranking employee at the foundry measure performance and drive continuous improvement.
MOE acknowledges that the Foundry – Industry Standard may require periodic updating. Under the authority of the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) any two people may request the Minister review a technical standard. The following factors could be considered in making this request:
- The length of time the technical standard has been in place;
- New technically and/or economically feasible options that have become commercially available; and
- Any new scientific information relating to the nature of any contaminant to which the technical standard applies.
3. INDUSTRIES SUPPORT THE SECTOR-BASED APPROACH.
Comment: In general, industries support the sector-based approach. Some see it as a way to reallocate resources to prevention and process improvement as opposed to modelling potential outcomes.
Response: The MOE considered these comments and the Foundry - Industry Standard is intended to focus on the prevention of pollution through technical requirements such as operational and management practices and pollution control technologies.
4. OTHER TECHNICAL COMMENTS
Comment: Several technical comments were received, including:
- Disagreeing with the use of 0.1% lead by weight in products as a criteria because no lead or low lead alloys often contain more than 0.1% lead;.
- Scrubbers should be considered as an appropriate pollution control technology; and,
- Consider the addition of the following contaminants to the industry standard such as:
Fluoride, Silica, NOx, SO2, 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene, Creosols, Methyl alcohol and Ethyl alcohol.
Response: The MOE considered these technical comments and made the following adjustments:
- The criteria for lead content was changed to 0.2% lead by weight in raw materials;
- Scrubbers were re-evaluated and added as an option for pollution control; and,
- The contaminants were re-evaluated and the following were added to the industry standard: Silica, SO2, 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene, Methyl alcohol and Ethyl alcohol.
Registration Process for Technical Standards:
Facilities that are part of a class of facilities addressed under a technical standard published by the MOE will have at least one year to decide whether or not to register under this new compliance option. MOE will be developing a registration process for facilities that are interested in pursing this new compliance option. Further details will be made available on the MOE website in early 2010.