Ministry of Environment JUDGEMENT:

Transcription

1 Province of British Columbia Ministry of Environment ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD Victoria British Columbia V8V 1X5 Appeal No. 85/31 WASTE JUDGEMENT: In the appeal of the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, The City of Port Moody, the Corporation of the City of Port Coquitlam and Mrs. Pamela Graham against the Waste Management Act - Decision of the District Director of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, dated December 4th, The decision of the District Director was to issue Waste Management Permit VA-330 to the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, which authorized the discharge of air contaminants to the atmosphere from the Burrard Thermal Electric Generating Plant at loco, B. C. Waste Management Permit VA-330 authorizes the discharge of air contaminants from the plant's six major power boilers, the auxiliary boiler, the emergency diesel generator and four turbine hall space heaters. This permit restricts the discharge of each of these units to a maximum level, as specified within the nine appendices to the permit. It further gives the District Director the power to order a curtailment of the plant's operations if unsatisfactory ambient air quality conditions are likely to result from the plant's operations because of predicted meteorological conditions and other factors. Unsatisfactory ambient air quality conditions are defined as conditions which are equal to or above Maximum Tolerable Levels, as established pursuant to the Clean Air Act of Canada. APPELLANTS: The Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District The City of Port Moody The Corporation of the City of Port Coquitlam Mrs. Pamela Graham, Vancouver, B. C.

2 Appeal No. 85/31 WASTE Page 2 DECISION: The Environmental Appeal Board, authorized under the Waste Management Act and the Environment Management Act to hear the appeals of the Board of Directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the City of Port Moody, the Corporation of the City of Port Coquitlam and Pamela Graham against the decision of the District Director of the Greater Vancouver Regional District of December 4th, 1985, to issue Permit VA-330 to the British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, has considered all of the evidence submitted to it at the hearing of March 12, 13 and 14, 1986, and has decided that the issuance of this permit, with the amendments as listed below, will not cause an unreasonable adverse effect to mankind and/or the environment. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The following amendments are to be made to the permit: 1) Definition 13 of Appendix No. B, Page 2, to Waste Management Permit VA-330 is hereby amended, as follows: 13. The application of relevant Policies and Procedures as established by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment shall be considered in the evaluation of ambient air quality levels and appropriate procedures for the abatement and curtailment of emissions from designated sources. 2) Definition 14 of Appendix No. B, Page 2, to Waste Management Permit VA-330 is hereby added, as follows: 14. Designated Air Contaminants are those ambient air contaminants, as measured at Air Quality Evaluation Stations, which the Director has designated as having the potential to significantly increase in concentration as a result of emissions by the Permittee.

3 .Appeal No. 85/3l WASTE Page 3 3. Paragraph 5 of Appendix No.B, Page 4, to Waste Management Permit VA-330 is hereby amended, as follows: 5) In the event the air quality level for a Designated Air Contaminant reaches or is predicted to reach a level equal to 50% of the difference between Maximum Acceptable Level and Maximum Tolerable Level for five continuous averaging periods as measured at the air quality evaluation stations, or if, in the opinion of the District Director, the Permittee is materially contributing to unsatisfactory ambient air quality levels (for five continuous averaging periods) as measured at one or more air quality evaluation stations, then the District Director shall order the Permittee to curtail the emissions from designated sources consistent with the need to prevent the levels of air contaminants measured at the monitoring stations from reaching or exceeding Maximum Tolerable Levels. GENERAL COMMENTS OF THE BOARD: 1) The Board was impressed with the medical evidence of Dr. David Bates, M.D. His evidence was that exposure to ozone (03) at ppm produced virtually no risk to asthmatics, but that at ppm, measurable effects to exercising children can be demonstrated. In Exhibit "L", submitted by Dr. Bates, it referenced work by Folinsbee, which stated "they observed no changes in respiratory function or systems to the ppm exposure to ozone (reference to exercising young adults)." From his evidence, it would, therefore, seem that the first adverse health effects to the most sensitive elements of the population would begin to appear as the concentration of ozone in the atmosphere approaches ppm. It also appears that the more prolonged the exposure, the more pronounced will be the effect. 2) The Board considers that any frequent or prolonged exposure of the population of the lower mainland to ozone in the atmosphere at concentrations above ppm is a serious matter. Curtailment of the precursors of ozone must start at this concentration, so as to prevent episode concentrations from exceeding the Maximum Tolerable Level.

4 Appe~l No. 85/31 WASTE Page 4 3) The Board was impressed with, and supports, the co-operative program now underway by the Federal Government, the Provincial Government and the Regional District to assess the photochemical oxidant problem and develop an ozone control strategy. The Board noted the extent of the program from Mr. MacKay's evidence (Item 15), which is as follows: a) Improvements to the Air Quality Monitoring System. b) Development of a comprehensive emissions' inventory. c) Application of sophisticated photochemical air quality models. d) Studies related to emissions from motor-vehicle fueling and operations. e) Research projects at U.B.C., focussing on the characterization of regional meteorology and the effects of oxidants on public health and agricultural crops. 4) The Board noted from the evidence of Dr. Oke (crossexamination Item 4) that the ozone levels in the lower mainland showed a peak in 1981, but declining levels thereafter. Dr. Steyn said that he is concerned because we have no knowledge as to why these levels are declining. The Board wonders if perhaps the decline in emissions of ozone precursors to the atmosphere is because of improvements made to automobile exhaust systems during that period of time. After all, automobile exhaust is by far the greatest source of ozone in the atmosphere. 5) Dr. Oke and Dr. Steyn indicated that no permit should be issued to B.C. Hydro until substantially all relevant data are available. The Board cannot accept this principle, because it believes that it is desirable to set up the framework for a permit and refine it and improve on it as new data are developed. This permit is for a three-year period only; it is not cast in stone, and it can be revised at any time. The Board is told that a substantial amount of the data, which Dr.Oke and Dr. Steyn

5 Appeal No. 85/31 WASTE Page 5 believe to be essential, will be available by the time the permit expires and a new one is written. The Board also notes that there is relatively no danger in taking the above approach since ozone levels have been and are still declining in the lower mainland area. 6) The Board noted from the evidence of Dr. Frank Murray,Ph.D., that the most effective way of curtailing an ozone buildup in the atmosphere is to limit the discharge of reactive hydrocarbons. This is the method adopted in most areas of the world where ozone problems are experienced. Doing less significant things is like paying lip service to the problem. 7) The Board also notes the exceedingly unfair treatment of B.C. Hydro, as the permit now exists, in relationship to those conditions imposed on other industrial plants in the Province. The unfair treatment of B.C. Hydro is as follows: a) All other industrial plants in the Province are only required to meet the Level "A" or "B" objectives, and a few of these plants are even failing to do that. On a number of individual source emissions (i.e. nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides and particulate matter), the BTGP must go well beyond the Level "A" objectives. b) The full capacity of the BTGP is restricted on a three-year basis (i.e. 44% in 1986 and 1987 and 67% in 1988). c) This is one of the few plants in the Province subject to additional curtailment of its operations (i.e. above that noted in Item (b)) on the basis of ambient air quality conditions. d) It was not proven that the BTGP contributes to increased ozone levels in the lower mainland. In fact, its operations may even help disperse ozone in the atmosphere. e) This is the only plant in the Province to be forced to provide and carry the burden of operations of a meteorological forecasting system.

6 -Appeal No. 85/31 WASTE Page 6 f) The most effective way to curtail the buildup of ozone-in the environment is by limiting the discharge of reactive hydrocarbons to the atmosphere from those sources which discharge reactive hydrocarbons. From Dr. Murray's evidence (cross-examination Item 20), the hydrocarbon emissions from the plant are very small and in the form of methane,-which is not a reactive hydrocarbon, and will not enter into any reaction involving the production of ozone. g) The curtailment of plant operations not only affects the output of the BTGP, but also interferes with the flexibility of operations of the entire integrated power system. No other industrial organization in the Province is subject to such conditions on the basis of the operations of one of its plants only. 8) Mayor Driscoll said that the application of this permit represents a vastly expanded use of the plant. The Board notes, however, that before this permit was written, B.C. Hydro had unrestricted full operation of the plant as long as the boilers were fired on natural gas. In sifting through the evidence, the Board has difficulty in finding any place where B.C. Hydro said they expected to expand the operations of this plant during the term of this permit. In fact, it was stated that the plant may not operate sufficiently long enough during the next three years for Dr. Murray to finish his study on plant emissions. 9) In a review of the B.C. Hydro report (Exhibit R) by Brotherston and Emslie, the following was indicated for nitrogen dioxide emissions from the plant: a) Over a 4-year period, 20,000-1 hour recordings were collected, only 1 hour of data exceeded the maximum acceptable guideline (Page 4-3). b) The tracer study results indicate that under infrequent and poor dispersive conditions, the Nitrogen Dioxide levels from all sources might exceed the 1 hour maximum acceptable levels, but that these exceedances would be limited to a few hours on severe stagnation days, probably in September and October (Page 5-5).

7 Appeal No. 85/31 WASTE Page 7 c) The stations T-7. T-l5 and T-l4 are well located to record BTGP impacts during poor dispersive periods. Based on the above, it is the Board's opinion that it would be reasonable to control BTGP emissions by an ambient control regime based on nitrogen dioxide as measured in the vicinity of the plant. The Director has power to curtail emissions, based on any contaminant at any location. 10) The Board believes that an emissions control curtailment program must be developed for the lower mainland to limit episodes of excessive ozone concentrations in the atmosphere. A plan of this nature will have to encompass the emissions from industrial plants, as well as those from automobiles. It is suggested that a start in ambient air control might well be initiated in a less complicated circumstance than the present instance. F.A. Hillier, P. Eng., Chairman, Environmental Appeal Board Victoria, B. C. June 25th, 1986.