This consultation was open from:
November 1, 2018
to December 16, 2018
Decision summary
An Environmental Compliance Approval with Limited Operational Flexibility (Air & Noise) which replaces all the current Environmental Compliance Approvals for Air and Noise at this facility and includes the addition of new or historically unapproved sources for all emissions has been granted to Ryding-Regency Meat Packers Ltd., a slaughterhouse.
Location details
Site address
70 Glen Scarlett Road
Toronto,
ON
M6N 1P4
Canada
Site location map
The location pin reflects the approximate area where environmental activity is taking place.
View this location on a map opens link in a new windowProponent(s)
Ryding-Regency Meat Packers Ltd.
70 Glen Scarlett Road
Toronto,
ON
M6N 1P4
Canada
Decision details
An Environmental Compliance Approval with Limited Operational Flexibility (Air & Noise) which replaces all the current Environmental Compliance Approvals for Air and Noise at this facility and includes the addition of new or historically unapproved sources for all emissions has been granted to Ryding-Regency Meat Packers Ltd., a slaughterhouse and meat packing plant located in the City of Toronto, Ontario.
The application includes all sources at the facility, including:
- barn exhausts
- manure stockpiles
- lactic acid cabinet
- condensers
- combustion equipment
Emissions to the air from this facility include:
- ammonia
- nitrogen oxides
- particulate matter
- lactic acid
The Environmental Compliance Approval with Limited Operational Flexibility (Air & Noise), when issued, permits modifications to the facility subject to limits on operational flexibility that include a production limit for the facility to be specified on the Environmental Compliance Approval with Limited Operational Flexibility (Air & Noise).
The limited operational flexibility conditions have an expiry date. The company will be required to make an application for amendment at that time to renew these conditions.
Effects of consultation
Two written comments and 91 electronic comments were received during the posting period.
In general, all commenters expressed concerns about increasing production/emission levels from the site and a potential negative health impact related to these increased. Additionally, commenters expressed concerns about odour emission from the site, lack of proper responses to complaints, inappropriate land use/city zoning, residential property values, air and noise pollution from delivery trucks on public roads and future development of the area.
Ministry response:
Proposals for Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for Air and Noise undergo detailed technical review to determine whether or not they comply with the requirements related to Section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act (s.9 EPA). Approvals are only issued if all of these requirements are satisfied.
Submitted proposal, including Best Management Practice Plan (BMPP) to reduce odour emissions from the site, satisfies requirements set in s.9 EPA.
Comments received were reviewed and, where appropriate, were considered in the ministry's decision whether or not to proceed with this proposal. In this case, the comments are consistent with concerns within the ministry and as a result terms and conditions have been added.
The terms and conditions do not represent all conditions in the ECA, but are those related to the comments on the proposal.
1. Increasing production and emission rates from the site and potential health impact of these increases
Ministry response:
The proposal does not include any increase of production/emission rates from the site. The proposal is to comply with s.9 EPA requirement and to verify compliance with Regulation 419/05 point of impingement concentration (POI) limits.
Based on the ESDM Report and all supporting information received, the proposal meets the Ministry requirements.
The production limit (based on the previous years production rates) has been included in the ECA. The facility is not allowed to operates above stated production limit.
2. Odour emission from the site/proper communications and responses to complaints
Ministry response:
The facility submitted (acceptable to the ministry) a Best Management Practice Plan (BMPP) for the control of odour emissions from the site. Implementation of proposed immediate and short time measures indicates significant reduction of odour impact from the site. Additionally, the BMPP is not limited only to the immediate and short time measures. The facility also committed to implement any additional steps/measures, such us detailed odour assessment and installation of odour control equipment to eliminate adverse effect related to odour emissions, if required.
The BMPP includes also proper complaints response procedure and other administrative procedure to verify an efficiency of the BMPP on an on-going basis.
The ECA includes condition to immediate implementation of the proposed BMPP.
3. Inappropriate land use/city zoning, residential property values, air and noise pollution from delivery trucks on public roads and future development of the area
Ministry response:
Should be noted that ECA (Air and Noise) applies only to s.9 EPA.
Inappropriate land use/city zoning, residential property values, air and noise pollution from delivery trucks on public roads and future development of the area issues are beyond the scope of s.9 EPA.
4. Concerns have been raised that this application would increase levels of truck/machinery noise from the facility. There were also comments related to noise generated by traffic on public roads
Ministry response:
The proposal's Acoustic Assessment Report demonstrates that the operations of this facility will meet ministry's noise limits upon the completion of a Noise Abatement Action Plan. Following the implementation of the Noise Abatement Action Plan, an Acoustic Audit will be required so that the noise impact and compliance can be verified by a third party.
It should be noted that ECA (Air and Noise) applies only to s.9 EPA. Inappropriate land use/city zoning, residential property values, air and noise pollution from delivery trucks on public roads and future development of the area issues are beyond the scope of s.9 EPA.
Supporting materials
View materials in person
Some supporting materials may not be available online. If this is the case, you can request to view the materials in person.
Get in touch with the office listed below to find out if materials are available.
135 St Clair Ave West
1st Floor
Toronto,
ON
M4V 1P5
Canada
5775 Yonge Street
Floor 9
Toronto,
ON
M2M 4J1
Canada
How to Appeal
This instrument decision can be appealed. You have 15 days from March 18, 2020 to begin the appeal process.
Carefully review the information below to learn more about the appeal process.
How to appealClick to Expand Accordion
For instrument decisions published on or after June 1, 2021, please refer to the updated instructions for information on how to appeal a decision.
Appeal process for decisions published before June 1, 2021
If you’re an Ontario resident, you can start the process to appeal this instrument decision.
First, you’ll need to seek leave (i.e. get permission) from the relevant appellate body to appeal the decision.
If the appellate body grants leave, the appeal itself will follow.
Seek leave to appeal
To seek leave to appeal, you need to do these three things:
- prepare your application
- provide notice to the minister
- mail your application to three parties
1. Prepare your application
You’ll need to prepare an application. You may wish to include the following things in your application:
- A document that includes:
- your name, phone number, fax number (if any), and/or email address
- the ERO number and ministry reference number (located on this page)
- a statement about whether you are a resident in Ontario
- your interest in the decision, and any facts you want taken into account in deciding whether you have an interest in the decision
- the parts of the instrument that you’re challenging
- whether the decision could result in significant harm to the environment
- the reason(s) why you believe that no reasonable person – having regard to the relevant law and to any government policies developed to guide decisions of that kind – could have made the decision
- the grounds (facts) you’ll be using to appeal
- the outcome you’d like to see
- A copy of the instrument (approval, permit, order) that you you are seeking leave to appeal. You’ll find this in the decision notice on the Environmental Registry
- Copies of all supporting documents, facts and evidence that you’ll be using to appeal
What is considered
The appeal body will consider the following two questions in deciding whether to grant you leave to appeal:
- is there is good reason to believe that no reasonable person, with respect to the relevant law and to any government policies developed to guide decisions of that kind, could have made the decision?
- could the decision you wish to appeal result in significant harm to the environment?
2. Provide your notice
You’ll need to provide notice to the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks that you’re seeking leave to appeal.
In your notice, please include a brief description of the:
- decision that you wish to appeal
- grounds for granting leave to appeal
You can provide notice by email at minister.mecp@ontario.ca or by mail at:
College Park 5th Floor, 777 Bay St.
Toronto, ON
M7A 2J3
3. Mail your application
You’ll need to mail your application that you prepared in step #1 to each of these three parties:
- appellate body
- issuing authority (the ministry official who issued the instrument)
- proponent (the company or individual to whom the instrument was issued)
Ryding-Regency Meat Packers Ltd.
70 Glen Scarlett Road
Toronto,
ON
M6N 1P4
Canada
Environmental Review Tribunal
Attention: The Secretary
655 Bay Street
Floor 15
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1E5
(416) 212-6349
(866) 448-2248
OLT.Registrar@ontario.ca
Include the following:
This is not legal advice. Please refer to the Environmental Bill of Rights for exact legal requirements. Consult a lawyer if you need help with the appeal process.
Connect with us
Contact
Client Services and Permissions Branch
135 St Clair Ave West
1st Floor
Toronto,
ON
M4V 1P5
Canada
Original proposal
Proposal details
Description of instrument
This proposal is for an Environmental Compliance Approval with Limited Operational Flexibility (Air and Noise) which replaces all the current Environmental Compliance Approvals for Air and Noise and includes the addition of new or historically unapproved sources for all emissions from Ryding-Regency Meat Packers Ltd., a slaughterhouse and meat packing plant located in the City of Toronto, Ontario.
The proposal includes all sources at the facility, including:
- barn exhausts,
- manure stockpiles,
- lactic acid cabinet,
- condensers and
- combustion equipment.
Emissions to the air from this facility include ammonia, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and lactic acid.
The Environmental Compliance Approval with Limited Operational Flexibility (Air), when issued permits modifications to the facility subject to limits on operational flexibility that include a production limit for the facility to be specified on the Environmental Compliance Approval with Limited Operational Flexibility (Air).
The limited operational flexibility conditions have an expiry date. The company will be required to make an application for amendment at that time to renew these conditions.
Supporting materials
View materials in person
Some supporting materials may not be available online. If this is the case, you can request to view the materials in person.
Get in touch with the office listed below to find out if materials are available.
135 St Clair Ave West
1st Floor
Toronto,
ON
M4V 1P5
Canada
5775 Yonge Street
Floor 9
Toronto,
ON
M2M 4J1
Canada
Comment
Commenting is now closed.
This consultation was open from November 1, 2018
to December 16, 2018
Connect with us
Contact
Client Services and Permissions Branch
135 St Clair Ave West
1st Floor
Toronto,
ON
M4V 1P5
Canada
Comments received
Through the registry
91By email
0By mail
2