Ontario’s Proposed Land Use Compatibility Guideline – What you Need to Know.

By: Ibrahim Syed

What is the Land Use Compatibility Guideline?

The Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) is proposing a single Land Use Compatibility Guideline (LUCG) to replace multiple existing D-series guidelines for the assessment of compatibility between industrial operations and sensitive land uses. The proposed LUCG would apply when an approval under the Planning Act is needed in the following situations:

1.       a new or expanding sensitive land use is proposed near an existing or planned Major Facility; or

2.       a new or expanding Major Facility is proposed near an existing or planned sensitive land use.

The primary purpose of the LUCG is to support the implementation of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS).

The proposed LUCG shifts the compatibility assessment approach from the three industrial class system (Class I, II and III) in the D-series guidelines to a five industrial class system (Class 1 to 5). Each of the five classes is assigned characteristic zones of potential impact called Area of Influence (AOI) and Minimum Separation Distance (MSD).  These parameters are based on an analysis of the MECP complaint data (specific to noise, dust and odour) from a ten-year period. Figure A below shows the MECP guidance for determining AOI and MSD.

Figure A:         Area of Influence and Minimum Separation Distance

(Photo Reference – Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks - DRAFT - Land Use Compatibility Guideline (pg 19) - https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-2785)

When the LUCG requirements are triggered, the first step requires a proponent to determine whether a proposed sensitive land is within a Major Facility’s AOI/MSD, or whether the AOI/MSD of a proposed Major Facility captures existing sensitive land uses. If the answer is yes, then a compatibility study is required, otherwise not. The proposed LUCG recommends against the development of sensitive land uses within the MSD of a Major Facility.

Table 1 provide facility specific AOIs, MSDs and Class numbers. Proponents of industrial facilities or proponents of sensitive land uses can refer to Table 1 of the proposed LUCG to confirm if the industrial facility belongs to a specific type of Major Facility. If the Major Facility is not identified in Table 1 of proposed LUCG, then guidance provided in Table 2 and Table 3 of the proposed LUCG can be used to classify the Major Facility based on factors such as potential for fugitive emissions, hours of operations, noise and odour complaint history, etc. Table 2 and Table 3 provide generic AOIs, MSDSs and Class numbers.

Minimum and maximum AOI recommended in the D-series guidelines are 70 meters (Class I) and 1000 meters (Class III) respectively. In contrast, the proposed LUCG recommends generic minimum and maximum AOI of 500 meters (Class 1) and 2000 meters (Class 5), respectively.  It was noted that the generic AOIs and MSDs are higher than facility specific AOIs and MSDs. For example, generic Class 1 AOI is 500 meters whereas facility specific Class 1 (for a ready-mix concrete plant) AOI is 250 meters. Direct comparison between AOIs and MSDs of D-series guideline classes and of proposed LUCG classes is difficult, so specific examples are provided in Table A below.

Table A:          Comparison of AOIs and MSDs in D-Series Guidelines and Proposed LUCG

* Typical Class associated with the industrial operation. Class category not specifically assigned by D-series guidelines.

** Class category assigned by proposed LUCG.

What to do if Development is Proposed within an AOI or MSD?

As per the proposed LUCG, the first step is to carry out a compatibility study. If a compatibility study shows that no adverse effects to sensitive land uses or impacts to major facilities is expected at the proposed separation distance (or a revised separation distance based on the study) without mitigation, then no further action would be required (unless the proposal is for a new sensitive land use located within the MSD). If a compatibility study shows that adverse effects to sensitive land uses or impacts to major facilities are expected at a proposed separation distance, then identification of mitigation measures is required. The implementation of identified mitigation measures is recommended as part of the planning approval process. If a proposed new sensitive land use is located within the AOI of a major facility and mitigation measures are identified or if a proposed new sensitive land use is located in the MSD of a major facility, a demonstration of need would be required, which is an assessment that determines whether there is an identified need for the proposed use in the proposed location and evaluates alternative locations for the proposed use if avoidance is not possible. Demonstration of need is only required for proponents of sensitive land uses.

How ORTECH can help?

ORTECH can assess compatibility of your new or expanding industrial facility or proposed sensitive land use development with existing industrial land uses in the area, by identifying appropriate AOI and MSD based on the proposed LUCG. From there ORTECH can prepare compatibility study reports in support of rezoning applications or site plan approval applications. As per the LUCG, planning authorities may consider using an alternate AOI if it can be justified through the results of a technical and scientific process similar to that of a compatibility study. ORTECH can complete technical assessments to identify alternate AOI suitable for your industrial facility or sensitive land use development. ORTECH can also identify suitable mitigation strategies, if required and develop technology benchmarking reports, odour/dust best management plans, etc. to minimize adverse impacts. Figure B shows the decision tree for land use compatibility assessment. The comment period for the proposed LUCG closes July 3, 2021 and ORTECH is tracking the important developments associated with proposed LUCG by attending MECP’s webinars and information sessions and submitting our own comments.

(Photo Reference – Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks - DRAFT - Land Use Compatibility Guideline (pg 36) - https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-2785)

What happens if the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) goes away? – Part 2

By: Ka-Ming Lin

Part 1 of this blog was posted back in February.  It talked about what the Industrial Conservation Initiative (ICI) is, why it is so important, and what it’s near term future looked like.  Of special note was the fact that the Industrial Rate Review was pending.  The consultation period for the Industrial Rate Review ran from April 1 to July 16 and a report summarizing the comments received has been released.

The ICI program allows some customers to control their Global Adjustment (GA) charges which can result in very substantial reductions to their electricity costs.  As both GA charges and ICI eligibility has increased, the ICI program has taken on a bigger role in Ontario’s electricity landscape.  As a result, it is becoming more important for anyone interested in the cost of electricity in Ontario to follow developments which could impact the ICI program.

What the Government heard

While the consultation report was for the Industrial Rate Review overall, the summary report focused overwhelmingly on the ICI.  Of the six categories of comments received, two are directly about the ICI specifically, and three specifically mention the ICI in their summaries.  The ICI focus of the comments speaks to both the size of the ICI impacts on stakeholders, as well as the nature of the ICI, which puts control and agency in the hands of the customers.  This results in the government hearing about how the ICI impacts participants in terms of, not only electricity costs, but impacts to their overall operations.  Additionally, the government also heard about how the ICI program was impacting non-participants.

In Support of the ICI

The government heard that the ICI program was critical to the success and competitiveness of participants as well as providing tangible peak shaving benefit to the grid.  Some stakeholders stated that the viability of their businesses were dependent on the program and other stakeholders noted that they had made investment decisions based on the program and warned that changing the program would have negative consequences.

ICI Criticisms

The ICI program requires facilities to adjust their electricity usage in ways that are not related to their business.  Some businesses did not appreciate having to shift focus away from their lines of business in order to manage their electrical loads.  Some businesses experienced lost production as a result of ICI incentives.  Some ICI participants noted that the increase in ICI eligibility has made actual participation in the program more difficult by widening the peaks that need to be shaved.  This uncertainty has added a new level of risk to operations as missing even a single peak can have substantial financial consequences.  Additionally it was noted that the program represents a subsidization of ICI participants by non-participants and that this created a competitive disadvantage to smaller businesses.

Living with Uncertainty

The ICI program adds a great deal of uncertainty to operations. Here’s just a sample of the questions that facility managers need to ask themselves:

·         When do I need to start reducing my load, and when will it be safe to return to normal?

·         Will I be able to hit all 5 peaks?

·         Will the GA still remain such a large portion of electricity costs in the future?

·         How long will the ICI program be around?

This uncertainty results in facilities being unable to predict their future energy costs, which has serious impacts on the ability of businesses to plan their operations.  The government has been given this message quite clearly, and while there is support for the program’s continuation, even participants that were generally satisfied with the program had criticism.

This summary report doesn’t say where the government will go with industrial electricity rates, but it does collect the concerns and issues that stakeholders have raised.  The ICI program is clearly an important program and any changes made to it will have to be executed with care and consideration for the businesses that will be heavily impacted.  However, it does appear that changes are coming, as even supporters of the program recognize that it has flaws.

The approach to living with uncertainty is knowledge and planning.  It’s important to understand what the conditions are, how they might change, and what that actually means to your bottom line. Only then can we figure out what can be done, not only to mitigate negative impacts but also to get in position to take advantage of new opportunities.  As the electricity landscape continues to evolve, ORTECH will keep watch on developments with this approach in mind. 

Does my Municipal Building Need an Environmental Approval (ECA or EASR)?

By: Giulia Celli

The answer to this question depends on several factors such as the equipment you have installed, the location of the equipment and the potential for any environmental impacts.  Let’s back up and provide a bit of context.  The Ontario Government’s environmental rules say that if your business emits any contaminants to the air, you must comply with the regulation however, there are exemptions to this rule.  Section 9 (3) of the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, R. S. O. 1990, (the EPA) and O. Reg. 524/98 specify the (limited) types of equipment, activities, and operations that are exempt from needing an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) or an Environmental Activity and Sector Registry (EASR) registration. These exemptions include low capacity natural gas comfort heating systems, and standby power systems. Systems that you would generally find in a municipal building.

For example, an HVAC system that meets the following criteria is likely to be exempt:

·         Each combustion unit uses only natural gas, propane or both natural gas and propane as fuel, and

·         The thermal input rating of each combustion unit is not greater than 10.5 million kilojoules per hour.

·         If the HVAC system includes a cooling tower, drift loss from the cooling tower is controlled by drift eliminators.

And a standby power system that meets the following criteria is likely to be exempt:

·         The system is used and operated only during power outages or for testing or performing maintenance on the system;

·         The standby power system uses only one or more of the following as fuel: biodiesel, diesel, natural gas, and propane;

·         Each exhaust stack that is part of the standby power system is oriented vertically (and not obstructed by a rain cap);

·         Each generation unit that is part of the standby power system and that uses diesel or biodiesel as fuel, must meet, at a minimum, the Tier 1 Emission Standards set out in Table 1 of 40 CFR 89.112 (United States)

·         Each generation unit that is part of the standby power system and that uses propane or natural gas as fuel, must have a maximum discharge of 9.2 grams of nitrogen oxides per kilowatt hour

Other exemptions include things such as equipment used for food and beverage preparation at retail locations, items associated with low occupancy dwellings, some mobile equipment, and more. To complicate matters, the equipment may be exempt from requiring a permit but the facility itself is still required to meet this standard from the EPA:

“…despite any other provision of this Act or the regulations, a person shall not discharge a contaminant or cause or permit the discharge of a contaminant into the natural environment, if the discharge causes or may cause an adverse effect.” 

For municipal operations in multi-tenant buildings this general provision of the EPA can create some issues when air intakes are not sufficiently separated from equipment which would be otherwise exempt from obtaining an ECA or EASR permit.   

For due diligence, it is recommended to have all equipment that emits any contaminants (including noise and odour) to the air assessed for compliance. It is recommended that a letter from a qualified person stating that the facility is in compliance with Ontario regulations is kept with the facility.

If you have any questions about this post, please reach out to Giulia Celli at gcelli@ortech.ca.