Air Quality: Door Number 1, Number 2 or Number 3?
By 250 News
Prince George, B.C. - Tomorrow, the PG AIR Board will meet and try to make a decision about one of the recommendations in the Mayor's Task Force on Air Quality.
So, before the City's reps head to that meeting, they wanted to know just what kind of message they should be carrying to that meeting. Do they support the original recommendation, ( door number 1):
It is recommendation Number 27:
The BC Ministry of Environment and the PGAQIC should work with all industrial,commercial and transportation operations with PM emissions that are shown (by modeling and other studies) to have a significant impact on ambient air quality to set out targets, as well as two-, five- and ten-year timelines to reduce the impact of these sources on ambient levels. Targets should cumulatively keep Prince George in compliance with the Canada Wide Standard for PM2.5 in the short term and lower the impact of those sources by 40% of their 2006 contributions by 2016. Priority should be given to thosesources that do not use the current Best Available Control Technology. The report to Council says this recommendation has been "problematic" for directors on the PG AIR Board, as there is still a dispersion model report to be delivered (sometime next month) and there is a desire by some to wait until the science from that research can be used before setting any "target". The Provincial Ministry of the Environment has developed an alternative that it sees as being workable, consider this door number 2: PG AIR to work with all particulate matter emission sources to voluntarily reduce emissions that are shown (by modeling and other studies) to have a significant impact on ambient air quality. Two and five year voluntary emission reduction targets will be set for significant sources. Priority to be given to those sources that do not use the current Best Available Control Technology. Targets should achieve the proposed provincial PM2.5 objectives by December 31, 2013 as follows: If ambient targets are not met by 2013, PG AIR will consider recommending other strategies to reduce significant emission sources. By 2016, an annual average PM2.5 target of 5ug/m^3 should be achieved Meantime, the City's Environment Manager,Dan Adamson has offered up an alternative, which could be considered door number 3: Be it resolved that Council 1. Acknowledges the importance of working with regulators and stakeholders in addressing air quality issues in a responsible, practical and timely manner; 2. Recognizes the value of establishing an appropriate and defensible air quality improvement target; 3. Supports PGAIR’s review and analysis of the results of the final Dispersion Model Research Report to be completed prior to PGAIR endorsing an air quality improvement target, and; 4. Supports PGAIR Society in continuing its work towards a consensus agreement on an air quality improvement target through assessment of the findings from the final Dispersion Model Research Report and through developing wording on a target that is clear, defensible and practical. Councillor Debora Munoz says the revised resolution interferes with the work of the PG AIR Board, "While we would all like to see concensus on a topic, that doesn't always happen. I respect the work of the members of the Committee and I don't want to interfere with it. The Canada wide standards are far more defensible than the alternative resolution." She says the alternative presented by the Ministry of the Environment calls for purely voluntary compliance. Councillor Krause sasked "How can more nformationbe harmful?" He supports the alternative resolution developed by staff, which he says goes further towards concensus building. Councillor Dave Wilbur says recomendation 27 should stand "It was developed after agreat deal of thought anddialogue and carriesa great deal of weight. Let's get on with it and support recommendation 27." Mayor Rogers I am going to support this recommendation (#27) I am aware of the message it might send but I think we need to start working, We need to be clear as a city on where we want to go and where we want to go is raise that bar" He says Council needs to provide that leadership "Let's set the bar higher, roll up our sleeves and get to work."
The motion was defeated with Councillors Krause, Baseserman, Stolz and Green voting against supporting recommendation 27.
Council voted instead to take "door number three" with Mayor Rogers, Concillor Bassermann, Green, Stolz and Krause voting in favour of the four point resolution developed by staff.
Previous Story - Next Story
Email
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.usReturn to Home
Posted by: Green on January 6 2009 1:17 AM
It is all good and well to come up with a "target that is clear, defensible and practical."
The problem is that the premise is that the assessment of the findings from the final Dispersion Model Research Report will also be clear and defensible.
Good luck!!! Why do you think it is a year later than it is supposed to be?
Time for some of the Councillors to become more informed on the science and the lack of certainty.
The only certainty is that we know what the plants are permitted to release inot the air and have a reasonably good idea of what actually comes out. We have no idea what the effect is, which plant has the greastest effect, and so on. The results of the report will be very disputable and, I assume, they will be disputed if plants are expected to change their ways at multi million $ costs to them.