March 12, 2026

Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks
Client Services and Permissions Branch
135 St Clair Ave West
1st Floor
Toronto, ON
M4V 1P5

Dear Hon. Minister McCarthy and Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks administration,

RE: Environmental Registry of Ontario #026-0039

Environment Hamilton writes in response to ERO posting 026-0039, ArcelorMittal Canada MP Inc. and ArcelorMittal Canada Inc., operating as ArcelorMittal Dofasco G.P. to provide comments on the renewal of the Environmental Compliance Approval with Limited Operational Flexibility.

Environment Hamilton is a not-for-profit organization that was established in 2001 to help Hamiltonians to develop the knowledge and skills they need to protect and enhance the environment around them. The organization emerged from the efforts of a small group of citizens from east Hamilton who launched an investigation to ensure the City of Hamilton's old Rennie Street Landfill was properly cleaned up.

This submission outlines Environment Hamilton’s key concerns and recommendations regarding the proposed renewal.

1. Health concerns

Researchers completed a large ambient air quality study for Hamilton in 2023.

The study found that benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) is higher than provincial guidelines in all urban areas of Hamilton and is concentrated closer to the industrial area. Researchers were quoted saying: "If you look at how much benzo(a)pyrene is in a cigarette... if you were to smoke it, that's about the same amount you'd be exposed to… by just breathing in the air in these urban neighbourhoods near the industrial sites [1].” 

In a World Health Organization report, [2], of the Working Group on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) of the Joint Task Force on the Health Aspects of Air Pollution, titled “Human health effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as ambient air pollutants,” the authors conclude:

For carcinogenic air pollutants, including several PAHs, the lowest possible exposure should be aimed at to minimize the risk of cancer development in view of a no-effect threshold.

Monitoring programmes should be optimized to support the protection of populations from PAH exposure, either by establishing high-resolution networks in hot spots or by high-resolution modelling of PAH concentrations.

They reiterate:

“Evaluation of, for example, B[a]P alone will probably underestimate the carcinogenic potential of airborne PAH mixtures, since co-occurring substances are also carcinogenic” 

The authors also report findings from a report, [3], titled “WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants:”

The corresponding concentrations for lifetime exposure to B[a]P producing excess lifetime cancer risks of 1/10 000, 1/100 000 and 1/1 000 000 are approximately 1.2, 0.12 and 0.012 ng/m3, respectively.

These values are based on epidemiological data from studies on coke-oven workers.

While the concentration of B[a]P experienced by Hamilton residents from ArcelorMittal Dofasco’s operations is outdoor (ambient) air pollution, not indoor pollution, the maximum concentration predicted by an AERMOD dispersion model in ArcelorMittal Dofasco’s March 2024 Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling report was 9.9 ng/m3. This value is eight times larger than the 1/10 000 risk concentration.

Another contaminant with (now expired) site-specific standards is benzene. In the “WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants” report. It states: 

The concentrations of airborne benzene associated with an excess lifetime [cancer] risk of 1/10‌ 000, 1/100 000 and 1/1 000 000 are 17, 1.7 and 0.17 μg/m3.

The maximum annual concentration for benzene predicted by an AERMOD dispersion model in ArcelorMittal Dofasco’s March 2024 Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling report was 6.27 μg/m3.

Given:

• The high reported modelling values;
• The presence of other carcinogenic pollutants in addition to benzene and B[a]P in ambient air;
• The cumulative exposure of multiple industrial facilities in the area;
• The conclusion from health experts that the aim should be the lowest possible exposure;

Environment Hamilton has health concerns for both Hamilton residents and ArcelorMittal Dofasco (AMD) workers.

We suggest that the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) implement a stronger monitoring program both in the community and along the fence line. Near-real time fenceline and open path monitoring was done at an INEOS facility in Sarnia [4]. Installing this type of monitoring at AMD would give residents better confidence in reported air contaminant concentrations. The results from air quality modelling are concerning enough to justify this type of monitoring. Residents should have access to near-real time measured data and should not have to rely on the accuracy of air quality modelling.

2. Lack of information about upper air quality concentration performance conditions

In the previous Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) approved September 17, 2021 [5], the Limited Operational Flexibility (LOF) piece of the approval required compliance with performance conditions. The performance conditions included the following:

…the Company shall not discharge or cause or permit the discharge of a Compound of Concern into the air if, the Compound of Concern is identified in the ACB list as belonging to the category "Benchmark 1" and the discharge results in the concentration at a Point of Impingement exceeding the Benchmark 1 concentration or a Site-Specific Standard for the Compound of Concern...

Site-Specific Standards for AMD expired in June, 2023 [6], [7]. The ERO posting does not specify upper limits on air pollution.

AMD has stated in its abatement plan that it will continue to meet the expired site-specific standards, but Environment Hamilton is concerned about how this is enforced.

3. Lack of information about abatement plan

Reg. 419/05: AIR POLLUTION - LOCAL AIR QUALITY section 29, [8], states:

29. (1) A person who gives a notice to a provincial officer under subsection 28 (1) or (1.1) in respect of a contaminant shall, not later than 30 days after giving the notice, prepare and submit to a provincial officer a written abatement plan for the contaminant that recommends steps that should be taken to prevent discharges of the contaminant from resulting in a contravention of section 19 or 20 or an adverse effect. 

The ERO posting does not outline the steps that AMD is taking to prevent discharges of air contaminants beyond the schedule 2 and 3 standards specified in section 19 and 20 of O. Reg. 419/05.

The existence of an abatement plan also means that AMD is in contravention of section 19 and 20 of the regulation.

We would like access to written statements from AMD as specified in section 28 subsection (2):

1. A written statement or map identifying the location of the point of impingement.

2. A written statement specifying the highest concentration of the contaminant that the approved dispersion model predicts for the point of impingement.

3. A written statement specifying the number of averaging periods for which the approved dispersion model predicts that discharges of the contaminant may result in a contravention of section 19 or 20 or cause an adverse effect because of the concentration of the contaminant at the point of impingement, expressed as a percentage of the number of averaging periods in,

i. a period of five years, if the approved dispersion model was used in accordance with meteorological data described in paragraph 1, 1.1, 2 or 2.1 of subsection 13 (1),

ii. a period equal to the length of the period over which the meteorological data was collected, if the approved dispersion model was used in accordance with local or site-specific meteorological data described in paragraph 3 of subsection 13 (1), or

iii. a period equal to the length of the period that was used for the purposes of the computational method, if the approved dispersion model was used in accordance with meteorological data obtained from a computational method in accordance with paragraph 4 of subsection 13 (1).

4. Lack of information about timeline

The previous ECA was approved in September of 2021 and expired in December of 2023. There is no information in this ERO posting about the length of the proposed approval.

5. Lack of reporting requirements

In 2021, AMD announced that it would invest $1.765 billion to convert the steel production process and phase out coal-fired steelmaking at its facilities in Hamilton [9]. The Ontario government has pledged $500 million to support the coal phase-out project [10]. 

In AMD’s abatement plan that was submitted after the expiry of its site-specific standards, it was required to state steps that would be taken to prevent discharges of sulphur dioxide (SO2) that would result in a contravention updated SO2 standards. Updated SO2 standards were announced in 2018 and came into effect in 2023 [11].

One stated step was the plan to phase-out coal. AMD stated: “facilities that have demonstrated their commitment to transitioning to electric arc furnaces and have a defined timeline to end the use of coal by 2029 will be exempted [from taking measures to adhere to the updated SO2 standard].”

AMD executives communicated to the public in its January 2026 Community Liaison Committee meeting that it would currently be “irresponsible” to give a coal-phase out project timeline and that the timeline was not firm [12], [13]. We are unaware of any proposed amendments to the abatement plan to reflect this uncertainty.

Environment Hamilton recommends requiring a coal phase-out project timeline as part of the performance conditions of this ECA as well as quarterly reporting to update the public on the project’s progress. Conditions should be included that require a new ECA application if the project experiences more delays.

6. Clarity on updated sulphur dioxide regulations

New sulphur dioxide (SO2) regulations came into effect in July 2023 [11]. AMD now exceeds the MECP criteria for SO2. 

AMD’s abatement plan indicates that facilities that will be phased out during the coal phase-out project are exempt from the more stringent SO2 regulations, but now the coal-phase out project is delayed.

Environment Hamilton is concerned that under current regulatory compliance orders, AMD will be able to indefinitely contravene the updated SO2 standard if its coal phase-out project continues to be delayed.

We reiterate the need for reporting requirements outlined in section 5 of this comment and reiterate the need for enhanced monitoring as outlined in section 1 to ensure compliance with the updated SO2 standard.

7. Equipment included in the LOF

In the previous ECA, it states:

future construction, alterations, extensions or replacements are approved in this Approval if the future construction, alterations, extensions or replacements are Modifications to the Facility that:

a. are within the scope of the operations of the Facility as described in the Description Section of this Approval;

b. do not result in an increase of the Facility Production Limit above the level specified in the Description Section of this Approval;

c. result in compliance with the performance limits as specified in Condition 4.

Now that AMD has committed to phase-out coal, maintenance of key existing facilities like coke plants and blast furnaces should not be approved automatically under the ECA. This work should require public notice and comment periods via the Environmental Registry of Ontario to avoid sunk costs.

Some refurbishment projects on these key facilities can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and would lock the facilities in for decades of additional use [14]. This would be unacceptable from an environmental, health, and economic perspective.

8. Cumulative Effects

Residents in Hamilton are subjected to cumulative air pollution impacts due to emissions from numerous industrial facilities.

The Ontario government committed to review the Cumulative Effects Assessment in Air Pollution policy within two years of its release in 2018, but it has not done so [15].

It is irresponsible for the MECP to continue to approve operations of facilities that contribute to cumulative air pollution when it has yet to review this policy.

9. Lack of information about monitoring

Under the previous ECA, continuous monitoring was only required for opacity from coke battery stacks and temperatures in ladle heaters. There is no information in the current ECA that indicates additional monitoring will be required.

Many residents who attend community meetings express frustration with the difficulty in definitively determining the source of the soot and other particulate matter that builds up in their communities.

As stated in section 1 of this comment, we suggest that the MECP implement a stronger monitoring program by implementing near-real time fenceline and open path monitoring. Residents should have access to near-real time measured data and should not have to rely on the accuracy of air quality modelling.

10. Conclusion: Concerns about alignment with MECP Statement of Environmental Values

In the intro of the MECP’s Statement of Environmental Values (SEV), it states that “the people of Ontario have a right to a healthful environment [16].” 

As part of the ministry’s vision in the SEV, it states: “The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s vision is an Ontario with clean and safe air, land and water that contributes to healthy communities, ecological protection, and environmentally sustainable development for present and future generations.”

In the application of the SEV, it states: “The Ministry considers the cumulative effects on the environment; the interdependence of air, land, water and living organisms; and the relationships among the environment, the economy and society.”

The air pollution emitted from AMD alone is likely enough to significantly impair the right to a healthful environment for Hamilton residents, especially those in the near vicinity of the facility. The presence of cumulative air pollution further deteriorates this right.

It’s unacceptable that Hamilton residents currently cannot even accurately assess the health of the environment that they live in due to a lack of monitoring at AMD. With the transition at Algoma Steel Inc. to electric arc furnace technology, AMD is now the largest single source of industrial pollution in Ontario [17]. The MECP should only renew an Environmental Compliance Approval with AMD if it is going to use the tools at its disposal to hold AMD accountable to its commitment to phase-out coal. This includes performance conditions on reporting, monitoring, and clear air pollution standards.

The healthcare savings from providing a healthier environment can be put towards supporting workers in a transition away from coal.

References

[1] Peesker, Saira, Breathing the air in parts of Hamilton is like smoking a cigarette a day, researcher says, CBC Hamilton, July 13, 2023, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/air-quality-hamilton-1.6904964

[2] Human health effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as ambient air pollutants - Report of the Working Group on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons of the Joint Task Force on the Health Aspects of Air Pollution, November 30, 2021, https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289056533

[3] World Health Organization guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants, 2010, https://iris.who.int/items/8613a9dc-5f7e-4fec-9a18-d73c5bdcc430

[4] Reducing Benzene Emissions from INEOS Styrolution Canada Ltd., June 27, 2024, https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-8755

[5] Arcelormittal Dofasco G.P.- Environmental Compliance Approval (air), September 17, 2021, https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-3895

[6] Arcelormittal Dofasco G.P.- Approval of a site-specific air standard, January 14, 2021, https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-2297

[7] Arcelormittal Dofasco G.P.- Approval of a site-specific air standard, July 16, 2021, https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-3241

[8] O. Reg. 419/05: AIR POLLUTION - LOCAL AIR QUALITY, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/050419

[9] Government investing in Hamilton’s steel industry to support good jobs and significantly reduce emissions, July 30, 2021, https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2021/07/government-investing-in-hamiltons-steel-industry-to-support-good-jobs-and-significantly-reduce-emissions.html

[10] Province Invests in Clean Steelmaking Technology in Hamilton to Support Future of Ontario’s Auto Sector, February 15, 2022, https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1001604/province-invests-in-clean-steelmaking-technology-in-hamilton-to-support-future-of-ontarios-auto-sector

[11] Miron, Ian, Ontario delivers updates to outdated sulphur dioxide air quality standard, EcoJustice, March 27, 2018, https://ecojustice.ca/news/ontario-delivers-updates-to-outdated-sulphur-dioxide-air-quality-standard/

[12] Beattie, Samantha, ArcelorMittal Dofasco refuses to tell public when $2B decarbonization plan will happen, CBC Hamilton, January 21, 2026, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/dofasco-green-steel-project-9.7054330

[13] ArcelorMittal Dofasco Corporate Library, January 2026 ArcelorMittal Dofasco CLC Meeting Minutes and Presentation, https://dofasco.arcelormittal.com/corporate-library/corporate-library?type=CLC%20Meeting%20Minutes%20and%20Presentations

[14] Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, Steelmakers face crunch-time on coal, https://www.accr.org.au/downloads/19052025_accr_steelblastfurnacereport.pdf

[15] Canadian Environmental Law Association, Application for Review of Cumulative Effects Assessment in Air Approvals under the Environmental Bill of Rights, March 2, 2026, https://cela.ca/application-for-review-of-cumulative-effects-assessment-in-air-approvals-under-the-environmental-bill-of-rights/

[16] Statement of Environmental Values : Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, https://ero.ontario.ca/page/sevs/statement-environmental-values-ministry-environment-and-climate-change

[17]  Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting By Facility, Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks, https://data.ontario.ca/dataset/greenhouse-gas-emissions-reporting-by-facility