ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD Province of British Columbia

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD Province of British Columbia APPEAL NO. 89/12 PES DECISION Decision in the matter of the appeal against Pesticide Control Act - Pesticide Use Permit No /91 for truck mounted spray and/or power hose/nozzle methods of application of atrazine (Primatol Nine-0) P.C.P. No , or simazine (Simmaprim Nine-T) P.C.P. No , to control vegetation on road shoulders on all paved highways within the Grand Forks Highways District. DECISION APPELLANT Grand Forks Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides Box 2073 Grand Forks, B.C. VOH 1HO PERMITTEE British Columbia Minister of Transportation and Highways 310 Ward Street Nelson, B.C. V1L 5S4 This decision concerns an application of the pesticides atrazine and simazine by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to control vegetation on road shoulders on all paved highways within the Grand Forks Highways District. The use of the pesticides has been approved and authorized by the Administrator, Pesticide Control Act under the terms and conditions of Pesticide Use Permit No /91. The Permit authorizes the treatment of 75 hectares of road shoulders along paved highways within the Grand Forks Highways District. The pesticide is to be applied at the rate of 22.5 kilograms of active ingredient per hectare for a treatment totalling 1,687.5 kilograms for both atrazine and simazine combined. The evidence is that the treatment is to be confined to a narrow strip of road shoulder abutting the pavement approximately one metre wide along all paved highways within the District. The application of the pesticide is opposed by the Grand Forks Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides for the following reasons:

2 APPEAL NO. 89/12 PESTICIDE 2 The treatment poses a threat to the health of the public and of wildlife making use of the highway during and after spraying of the paved shoulders. The treatment will contaminate local vegetation, crop land and private properties adjacent to the paved shoulders. The treatment will likely contaminate water resources. The treatment represents another instance of the continual unquestioning practice of introducing pesticides (poisons) into our environment. The treatment should not have been approved until after concerned citizen groups of the communities affected had been consulted. The Appellant's evidence included expressions of concern over the pesticide treatment authorized under the Permit and particularly the health hazards and risks it introduced for man and the environment throughout the Grand Forks Hihways District. The evidence was that the treatment placed at risk all users of the road shoulders and was particularly hazardous to children and wildlife. Of major concern to the Appellant was the danger of exposure which existed immediately following treatment and in particular during periods of no or sparse rainfall, when the pesticide would not be expected to penetrate the gravel material of the road shoulder. The Appellant took exception to the fact that the public notice required to be given under the Permit only appeared in one of the two newspapers with circulation in the Grand Forks area. It was alleged in evidence that there are now available many methods of roadside vegetation management which provide viable alternatives to the use of pesticides. The alternative methods recommended for consideration included mowing, brush cutting, hand pulling, grading, hydro seeding, hand seeding, ph alteration, and steam spray application. The Appellant also expressed concern over the leaching characteristics of the pesticides under differing soil types and the lack of studies describing the soil composition along the highways in the treatment area. It was alleged that the treatment would result in water supplies being contaminated. The evidence of the Appellant relative to the registration of atrazine and the reevaluation of this pesticide by Agriculture Canada and all of the evidence presented concerning the toxicity of atrazine and simazine related to matters not relevant to the Panel's determination of the issues before it. It was clear to the Panel that much of the material may be relevant to the Appellant in expressing concerns over the general use and safety of pesticides in Canada. If the Appellant believes the

3 APPEAL NO. 89/12 PESTICIDE 3 material to be relevant in that context she should make her views known to the Product Management Division, Pesticide Directorate, Agriculture Canada. The Appellant also alleged that the residents of the Grand Forks Highways District were unnecessarily placed at risk from accidents arising out of the use or handling of the pesticides authorized under the Permit. The Permittee presented evidence to establish the need for vegetation management of road shoulders, the reason why pesticides were essential to the preservation of highway safety and the safeguards in place to prevent contamination of water supplies and to deal with emergency situations arising out of the use or handling of the pesticides. It is significant to note that the pesticide treatment authorized under the Permit is confined to a narrow ribbon of road shoulder averaging a metre in width along the edges of all paved highways within the Grand Forks Highways District. The Permittee alleged that the use of a pesticide was absolutely necessary because it provided the only effective means of penetrating into the gravel shoulder material to destroy the sub-surface root growth. It is the root growth which is the origin of the water retaining organic materials and the principal cause of pavement failure and shoulder collapse. The Panel carefully considered all of the evidence presented to it in this appeal and has concluded that: That the Appellant was correct in alleging that the public, particularly children, could use a road shoulder immediately following treatment without being aware that a pesticide was present. That the Appellant was correct in recommending the Permittee should be required to post signs warning users of the road shoulders that a pesticide treatment is either in progress or has just recently taken place. That the use of the pesticides authorized under the Permit will not adversely affect water supplies and groundwater sources lying along the highways where treatment is applied. That the Permit provides adequate pesticide-free and buffer- zones to ensure that the treatment will not jeopardize the safe use of local water supplies and groundwater sources. That consideration by the Panel of manual-mechanical methods of vegetation control is not indicated. That the Permit validly authorizes the use of two pesticides currently registered for use in Canada under the Pest Control Products Act (Canada).

4 APPEAL NO. 89/12 PESTICIDE 4 That the treatment authorized under the Permit is consistent with the use and rate of application permitted for each pesticide under its registration. That registration and compliance with both the authorized method of use and the terms and conditions of the Permit is evidence acceptable to the Panel that the treatment can be undertaken safely. In coming to its conclusions the Panel did not accept that treatment authorized under the Permit posed any threat to the health of water users or placed water supplies and groundwater sources adjacent to the highway right-of-way at risk. The Panel believes that confining the treatment to such a narrow surface area of road shoulder over the length of the highway network of the Grand Forks Highways District will result in the application of the chemical in such a highly dispersed fashion that it virtually eliminates the possibility of it accumulating in any harmful concentration in nearby water sources. This coupled with the fact that the shoulder material to be treated lies on the elevated, level portion of the road surface next to the pavement and well within the surveyed boundaries of the highway right-of-way further reduces its chances of migration. The Panel is further reinforced in this conclusion by the terms and conditions of the Permit which provide that no pesticide shall be applied within 30 metres of any domestic water intake or well and that a 10 metre pesticide-free zone shall be maintained along all water bodies. In addition, the Permittee is prepared, upon request, to exclude from treatment those portions of the highway road shoulders lying near the homes of residents who are not comfortable with the prospects of a pesticide being sprayed nearby. The Panel concluded that it was not necessary to consider alternative methods of vegetation control because it has determined the treatment authorized under the Permit will not cause any unreasonable adverse effect. The Permittee has been using atrazine and simazine for vegetation control on the shoulders of paved highways within the Grand Forks Highway District for the past 25 years without having been informed of, or having become aware of, one incident of adverse effect from the treatments. The Panel has decided: (1) That Clause "D" of the Pesticide Use Permit No /91 is amended by adding the following sentences: "At the time of application, a sign shall be displayed on each spray truck and on each accompanying vehicle indicating that a pesticide treatment is in progress. In addition, temporary highway maintenance signs indicating the presence of a pesticide shall be placed for a period of not less than 48 hours following application along those segments of the treatment area where pedestrian traffic on the road shoulders is likely to occur."

5 APPEAL NO. 89/12 PESTICIDE 5 (2) That implementation of the treatment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Permit, as amended, will not cause an unreasonable adverse effect to man and/or the environment. (3) That the appeal is dismissed. The Panel recommends that the Permittee consider sampling water supplies and groundwater sources along the highways in the Grand Forks Highways District to eliminate any doubt some local residents may have that the safety of their water supply has been placed at risk following the treatment authorized under the Permit. J.O. Moore, Panel Chairman Environmental Appeal Board Victoria, B.C. October 12, 1989