Province of Ontario EPA APC equipment

Many of the rules in the Province of Ontario allow a facility to emit pollutants with no APC equipment at all at as high a rate of the pollutant as it wants as long as it performs some basic modeling to demonstrate that the worst-case maximum ground-level concentration of the air toxic that the public is potentially exposed to does not exceed its health-based exposure concentration standard, taking into consideration other emission sources of that air toxic in the area. This rule also forbids the operation of any process – no matter how extensive the controls – if the impacts of its emissions after those controls exceeds its health-based standard. This is a way to protect an area’s residents in terms of public health. In the US, there are few laws like this. In the US, we believe in consistency: treat all similar facilities alike and focus control on the emission rate or percent control. What is a reasonable degree of control of toxic air pollutants to be expected for a given operation from a public health situation and not too expensive to strongly impact the facility? But such rules ignore health-based standards. One can (and does) have situations where sources of air toxics meet the percent control or mass emission standard, but their impacts indicate a potential public health problem anyway despite compliance with the rule. Perhaps because of geographic or meteorological factors from modeling. On the other hand, such thinking may cause facilities to spend a lot of money to control emissions even as their health-based standards can still be met with fewer or no controls. Consistency and operation-based regulations or health-based public protection? Which type of rule do you think is best or more fair for society?

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.