*There is nothing in this…

*There is nothing in this comment that prevents MECP from posting it publicly in the final decision on this instrument amendment. Please post!

Dear Madam/Sir
Please accept this submission as Environment Hamilton’s formal comments on ERO Posting No 019-2002 to amend the ECA (Air & Noise) for proponent Triple M Metal’s facility located at 799 Parkdale Avenue North in Hamilton.

There are a number of issues and concerns we would like to raise regarding this facility. We have detailed these issues and concerns in the paragraphs that follow.

Air Quality Impacts
Environment Hamilton has been observing, documenting and reporting air quality impacts from Triple M Metals to the MECP for almost a decade now. Over this time, there have been some improvements but some issues persist. The company has chronic problems with dust and drag out from the scrapyard onto Parkdale Avenue North, issues with metal shredder emissions – including smouldering, issues with particulate emissions from the yard’s slag processing area, and issues with metal torch cutting emissions. We can certainly provide with MECP with photos of the emissions we have observed from these various activities – including photos taken this year.

While improvements have been made in comparison to what we have documented and reported in the past, we do still see metal cutting emissions from the site – especially as the weather gets colder and it becomes more difficult for the company to control these emissions with a water spray. Given the nature of the contributions that metal cutting makes to air emissions from the site – including contaminants like manganese - we continue to be concerned about the impact of this activity on the local airshed. It is important to acknowledge that there are residential neighbourhoods to the north of the site (Hamilton Beach Community) and to the south of the site (Parkview West Neighbourhood). We have reported metal cutting emissions from this site to the MECP in 2020.

We also continue to see emissions from the site’s metal shredder. Sometimes the shredder emits what looks like really bad car exhaust and it makes us concerned that there may be residual foam and plastic that is being ignited within the shredder. We know that there have also been issues with explosions in the shredder – and this is also cause for concern because of noise impacts but also because of the potential for an explosion to ignite a fire in the shredder. We are aware that the Hamilton District Office of the MECP has had to issue several provincial officer’s orders this year in response to shredder explosion impacts on adjacent neighbourhoods. See POO No 8312-BNRJTL-1 dated May 13th, 2020.

The slag processing area also generates particulate emissions that sometimes waft offsite to the adjacent natural area or the industrial facility to the west of the Triple M site. Based on some of our observations – including observations made within the last two months – we believe that more needs to be done to control particulate emissions from this area of the yard – including preventing particulate emissions from migrating off-site to adjacent industries and the Windermere Basin habitat area. There is likely benefit in reviewing and improving the requirements set out in the company’s current ‘Best Management Practices Plan’ for fugitive emissions from the site’s operations.

We did have the opportunity to review the ESDM Report submitted as part of this ECA application. The ESDM summary chart highlights some concerns for us. First, it worries us that the modelling for the facility shows it at 91% of the MECP POI limit for manganese. Triple M is not the only scrapyard operating in the area and we are very aware of the fact that ArcelorMittal Dofasco to the west also has challenges with manganese emissions to air. We believe that the MECP must take into consideration these multiple sources and the cumulative effects of the release of manganese into the local airshed. Given that the manganese levels are so close to the MECP POI limit, we urge the MECP to require the company to undertake actual air quality monitoring at their Parkdale facility to provide assurances that they are not exceeding the POI limit for manganese. We believe this is that much more important given that there are multiple sources of manganese emissions to air within Hamilton’s industrial core.

We are also concerned about the modelled 45% of MECP POI limits for iron oxide and we question the low modelled values for particulate matter. Air monitoring should be required for this facility – and the monitoring should include measuring respirable and inhalable particulate matter levels to effectively assess the risks to human health and the environment.

Noise Impacts/ Acoustic Assessment
As part of this amendment application, the company was required to assess noise impacts from the facility. The assessment report concluded that the company is operating within allowable provincial noise guidelines but that any new equipment added to the operation should not exceed a noise level of 35 decibels (dB). Of particular note is Section 6.3 of this report – which sets out the ‘Noise Abatement Action Plan’. The action plan, which is incredibly brief, focuses on two methods for noise control: maintaining the heights of ‘storage piles’ and restricting hours of operation for certain activities at the site to between 7am and 11pm.

We are particularly concerned about the recommendation that the company continue to maintain storage piles at specified heights as one of the key noise abatement methods. We would argue that establishing required heights for ‘storage piles’ does not constitute proper noise abatement. The company should be required to install proper noise control walls/barriers in locations where such controls are warranted. Relying on ‘storage piles’ - which we are assuming are made up of scrap metal or related material – for noise abatement does not provide the necessary permanent assurances for surrounding businesses and residents that noise will be properly controlled on an on-going basis. Further, the recommended height for Storage Pile #1 (referenced in the acoustic assessment report) is 8m – well beyond the Ontario Fire Code’s 10 foot height limit for scrap yard piles that may contain combustible materials. In other words, this requirement for storage pile height to mitigate noise impacts could be introducing a fire risk at the site if the storage piles include combustible material. It is worth noting that just last night – Wednesday, August 19th – the company had a sizeable fire in a ‘mixed metal’ pile that was 4m x 4m in size (confirmation received from Hamilton Fire Chief regarding materials in pile and size of pile). It is also worth noting that the scrap facility next door – American Iron & Steel (AIM) has been required to install properly engineered noise abatement systems (not storage piles) and the same should be required for Triple M. We want to see the MECP require Triple M to also construct appropriate noise abatement features – and not to depend on sizeable ‘storage piles’ for this purpose.

On the second abatement method – restricting certain activities at the site to the hours of 7am until 11pm – it would be more ideal to restrict the operation of the facility to these hours. The noise abatement plan does indicate that certain equipment and activities – including shredder operation, slag metal recovery activities, iron slag dropping, and rail car shunting - will be restricted to 7am – 11pm. At a minimum, we would like to see a condition in the ECA that formalizes these operational restrictions.

We thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this application. Again, we are more than happy to share photos of the air emission issues we have observed from this facility.

Lynda Lukasik, PhD
Executive Director
Environment Hamilton