New Clean Air Bylaw Given 3rd Reading

Monday, March 22, 2010 09:30 PM

Prince George, B.C.- The Clean Air bylaw has been amended.

Despite the recent concerns raised about air quality issues in Prince George, there was only a handful of people in attendance as Prince George City Council dealt with ammendments to the clean air bylaw.

This new bylaw focuses on wood burning. While it allows for a continuation of the backyard wienie roast, it puts in a string of safety clauses . Here is the section referring to recreational fires:

All persons maintaining a recreational fire shall;

(a) be competent to control the recreational fire

(b) continuously control and supervise the recreational fire

(c) possess at the site of the recreational fire extinguishing equipment appropriate to the size and type of recreational fire

(d) use only seasoned firewood

(e) not cause, permit or allow the recreational fire to come within three (3) meters of any property line, fence, standing timber,brush or building.

The bylaw amendments also call for more controls on the use of wood burning appliances as primary sources of heat.

Staff say most of the changes in this bylaw have to do with wood burning practices because:

Wood burning is considered one of the “major contributors” to PM 2.5 levels (Sonoma Report 2008)

· An impact to ambient air quality

· A neighbourhood level impact

· Has potential for long‐term exposure – health concerns

According to staff, there are approximately 8,000 wood burning appliances in the city:

· Widely distributed through‐out Prince George

· About 5,300 used for primary or secondary heat

· 1080 WBA permits issued since 2000

· Estimated total PM2.5 output = 140 tonnes/year

· Most of the appliances are older models with higher emissions.

The new bylaw would ban any new hydronic wood heaters from being installed within City Limits.

Staff also indicate the current rules in the Clean air Bylaw to control dust and street sweeping are adequate.

Why not go after industry? That is not in the scope of the City’s jurisdiction is the basic answer, industry must meet provincial Ministry of the Environment standards and be granted permits. The City says it does not have the expertise to move into that area.

While supporting the amendments in saying they compliment the ongoing voluntary programs, and are important steps towards meeting emission reduction targets and improving local air quality, P.G. Air would like to see it go further.

It would like to see three further amendments to the bylaw:

One that would require the removal of non-certified wood burning appliances when a property is sold, or if there is atransfer of the property.
Sunset clause for older wood burning appliances that would see a date set to have them removed from use and replaced with alternative fuels, or a new EPA-certified wood burning appliances
Ban of recreational fires within the municipal boundaries. This would ban all recreational fires on all properties in the City.

Resident Sheila Fleming wanted to know what type of enforcement would back up the changes "We can make all these rules, but where are the teeth to enforce them?" Acting Mayor Dave Wilbur says the City has the authority and while enforcement will be complaint driven, there will be followup.

While some Councilors would like to see amendments made, Councilor Garth Frizzell says it isn't perfect, but should be a living document that can be changed. "I would like to see this pass and get on with cleaning the air".

Councilor Brian Skakun says he agrees with one of the residents who wanted to make sure the bylaw has teeth but was quick to point out the bylaw will not seem to be tough enough because it doesn't deal with industry.

Councilor Murry Krause says he thinks the City needs more stringent bylaws, but he is not interested in looking at recommendations for change that would amount to a re-write of the new bylaw "I want this to be implemented as quickly as possible."

Councilor Deborah Munoz has delivered a notice of motion on the air quality issue. She plans to call on her Council colleagues to agree to two resolutions that would:

Have Council submit a written request to the Provincial Government asking to have Prince George designated as a Sensitive Airshed and to commit the necessary resources to alleviate air quality problems in Prince George, and
Have administration develop a health Protection Air Quality bylaw aimed to specifically assess and control the health effects of major emissions of fine particulate matter in the City of Prince George.

Resident Mimi Long says all the new technology in the world won't change the user "Alhough hydronic heaters are meant to be used with seasoned ood, there is no control over what the person decides to burn. A person can be fully compliant and purchase a certified stove, but that's where our control ends because we don't have control over what they burn."

Here are the new fines for being found in violation of the new rules, keep in mind, some Councillors wouldlike to see the fines increased even higher:

Using a wood burning appliance while an air quality advisory is in effect. $200.00

Operating a wood burning appliance causing injury or damage. $100.00

Installation of a non-compliant woodburning appliance. $300.00

Installation of a hydronic heater. $300.00

Failure to install and maintain additional form of space heating in new building. $300.00

Failure to install and maintain additional form of space heating during building renovation. $200.00

Failure to obtain a Building Permit for a wood burning appliance. $200.00

Burning prohibited fuel type. $200.00

Conducting open burning. $300.00

Igniting or maintaining a recreational fire during an air quality advisory. $100.00

Maintaining a recreational fire causing injury or damage. $100.00

Burning prohibitive fuel type in a recreational fire. $100.00

Failure to control and supervise a recreation fire. $100.00

Failure to possess fire extinguishing equipment $100.00

Failure to maintain a recreation fire in a safe location. $100.00

Failure to use dust control measures. $200.00

Failure to use sufficient dust suppressing liquids. $200.00

Sweeping or maintenance operations causing injury or damage. $200.00

Conducting sweeping or maintenance during air quality advisory. $200.00

Failure to maintain sites so that dust does not cause injury or damage. $200.00

The amendments would outlaw all other kinds of open burning in the City.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, March 22, 2010 09:30 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: doneright on March 23 2010 12:21 AM

They are sure trying to get rid of the wood burners.
Half these people on city council put more emissions in the air by driving out to play golf, then I do burning wood.
Time to remember this come next election

Posted by: gus on March 23 2010 4:05 AM

"Wood burning is considered one of the “major contributors” to PM 2.5 levels (Sonoma Report 2008)"

That is the part that has never been tested. The assumptions were based on a totally erroneous survey that did not ask the right questions.
- the categories of "wood burners" were inadequately described
- no question was asked about the approximate amount of wood burned per year.

On top of that, no ground truthing was done. One can do visual checks of houses from the street and get a good idea of whether the place has a fireplace, the most common wood burner, and whether it has an insert to switch it to a higher efficiency burner. One can do visual checks after a snowfall on a colder day to see whether the snow is still on the chimney cap or whether it has melted off.

We saw the errors recently in measuring formaldehyde. In my opinion, the wood burning calculation has a very obvious error as well and needs to be redone.

Posted by: PGDriver on March 23 2010 6:57 AM

"Why not go after industry? That is not in the scope of the City’s jurisdiction is the basic answer, industry must meet provincial Ministry of the Environment standards and be granted permits. The City says it does not have the expertise to move into that area."

With all the studies, reports and tests the city should have a fair bit of expertise in this area. Only going after part of the problem is a waste of time and money.

Posted by: hammmy on March 23 2010 8:01 AM

Maybe big industry will wake up when we all have fricken Cancer in this city!

Always, I repeat always the little guy to blame isn't it!

Posted by: Loki on March 23 2010 8:29 AM

What does industry care if we all get cancer?
On the whole, "industry" has abused its resources: in raw materials, energy and in labour.

They blame the little guy because it is an easy and achievable action. Whereas industry just comes back with, "We give your citizens employment so they can pay taxes, go pound sand."

It is out of the city's pervue because the city charter has no teeth to enforce.

Posted by: Outwest on March 23 2010 8:50 AM

Operating a Pulp Mill within City Limits 100000 a Day Fine, am I ever glad to live far away from any City Bylaws and little Minds of City Counsels .

Posted by: seamutt on March 23 2010 9:56 AM

here is a recent peer review study on Toronto that says air pollution may have little or no health effects. An interesting read.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/21/mckitrick-toronto-smog-models-exaggerate-health-issues-where-

Posted by: gamblor on March 23 2010 10:15 AM

City Hall needs to do a better job of keeping abreast of changes in technology. They really shot themselves in the foot and showcased their ignorance by banning hydronic heating. Using water instead of forced air as a heat medium is about 60% more efficient from a thermal standpoint and over 80% more efficient from an electricity consumption standpoint. All this with similar emissions. Bottom line, a modern wood hydronic heater is several orders of magnitude more efficient than even the best woodstoves. Europeans have known this for years, too bad City Hall is stuck in the dark ages.

Posted by: Retired on March 23 2010 10:15 AM

The City says it does not have the expertise to move into that area."

This is just a song and dance. The fact is that the City does not have jurisdiction over industrial pollution thin is a Provincial matter. The fact is the City does not have the balls to go after the province to rectify the pollution within the City. So they spend their days on wood stove regulations.

In our subdivision Pinecone there are two wood burners and they only work part time. As has been mentioned before if its wood burners then why is the air quality so bad in the summer months when the owners are at the beach at a lake .

I think that Munoz has the right idea and that is going to the province to enforce industry to clean up their act.
Cheers

Posted by: Palopu on March 23 2010 10:52 AM

This is another inane effort by City Council to give the impression that they are doing something.

This is a direct result of us having less than top of the line Councillors. Some of the crap they try to heap on us, is a good indication that they are no more than a bunch of hill billy councillors, out of thier league.

While they put the pressure on the average Joe to get rid of his wood burning stove, the City has its planners hiding in the back ground working on the plans to build a wood burning Community Energy System, to heat water to heat downtown buildings.

The more PM 2.5 they can eliminate from wood burning stoves in the bowl, the more PM 2.5 they can produce with their energy system, without increasing the overall PM 2.5 in the bowl.

We are being royally screwed by these running dogs, who have no problem polluting themselves, with dust, vehicle fumes, millions of gallons of fuel burned and wasted because of their moronic tearing down of the Cameron St., bridge and the resulting diversion of traffic for four years.

If we are to reduce the pollution from burning wood, then the very least the City can do is scrap the Community Energy System, because of the additional pollution it will cause to the Bowl and to the Millar addition. They have control over this item so lets see them take some action. If not then they are nothing more than a bunch of blow hards.

They seem to have no problem with issuing fines for every bloody thing that they can think of. I think its time we implemented some fines for them.

1. If Councillors miss a meeting they should be fined $150.00

2. Each department should decrease its budget by 5% if they do not reach this goal then the Manager should be fined $500.00

3. If the City brings in the parking meters for the Downtown, then they should recind all free parking for City employees, each employee would have to pay a monthly fee for parking, same thing applies to Fireman, Police, Goverment workers, etc; No more free rides.

4. If customers at City Hall cannot be served within a 25 minute time frame then the Manager of the department should be fined $100.00 for not providing timely services.

5. There are Bylaws in this town to prevent dogs from defacting on public property, and if they do it must be picked up. These Bylaws must be enforced. If we find five or more piles of dog crap in any given City block, then the Bylaw Enforcement Office in charge of dog crap,should be fined $150.00 for each instance.

I could go on but you get my drift. Its time the City and Staff, etc; start to enjoy some of the stupid fines they are trying to shove down the throats of taxpayers.

I think it pretty obvious that they have completely forgotten who the hell they work for.

Posted by: Resident on March 23 2010 11:11 AM

From the National Pollution Release Inventory website.

Here is what Canfor reports for PM10 and PM2.5. this does not include the Northwood operation.

PM10 release to atmosphere is 350 tonnes per year or about 1 tonne or 2200 pounds per hour.

PM2.5 release to atmosphere is 271 tonnes per year or about 3/4 of a tonne or 1600 pounds per hour.

It is inconceivable that city council could ever consider that wood burning appliances in homes would be a contributing factor when compared with the emissions from the pulp industry and air pollution will only increase once the co-generation plant output is ramped up.

Posted by: Resident on March 23 2010 11:16 AM

Should read pounds per day rather than pounds per hour.

Sorry for the error.

Posted by: Harbinger on March 23 2010 2:31 PM

Nasty list of fines. My question is this: If enough people get fined, could the city then consider lowering my taxes? On another note, the folks in Kamloops turned down the creosote ties fire business. Maybe we should contact the minister and offer PG as a site for burning creosote railroad ties. Would anyone notice any difference here? (As long as those ties don't have formaldehyde in them, I don't foresee any problem).

Posted by: alex1212 on March 23 2010 6:07 PM

ya know local and prov and ottawa has closed the doors on us !! it will just get worse and before ya know it,, its too late they wil have their pensions and thats the bottom line

Posted by: Young Forever on March 23 2010 8:53 PM

The fine list is great, but did not see a fine for letting large amounts of formaldehyde in to the air ??