Residents Air Their Anger

Thursday, October 26, 2006 04:00 AM

Crowd fills room at Coast Inn to hear about Air Quality issues

About 165 Prince George residents turned out to a public forum organized by PACHA, the People's Action Committee for Healthy Air. They came with questions, they demanded answers. They didn't get everything they wanted.

Dr. Peter Jackson started off the two hour forum with a basic lesson, call it "Air Pollution 101". He tried to explain the progress that has been made, and the new challenges facing the community, namely Pm 2.5, that very fine particulate which is about 1/20th of the width of a human hair. It is so fine it is inhaled deeply into the lungs. The B.C. Ministry of Health says Pm 2.5 is the single greatest air pollution problem in B.C., yet not all communities monitor for Pm2.5 Prince George is one which does, and it has the dubious distinction of being in the top three worst cities for Pm2.5

One Prince George monitoring site is at the top of the list with the highest levels, followed by Williams Lake, and in third place is a second Prince George monitoring site.

Dr. Jackson (at left) says right now, early research suggests 40% of the Pm2.5 comes from industry, 40% from other sources like cars, burning, street cleaning, and the 20% balance may be ambient from sources that cannot be identified.

He says there is no real definintive answer as to who or what is creating this fine particulate "We don't have a grip on the sources, we need to know the sources so we can find out which ones we can control to reduce the problem."

It is a major problem.

One of his students at UNBC is conducting a study of Pm2.5 levels at schools in Prince George. The national marker for this particulate is not to exceed an average of "30" over 7 days of the year. During the sampling for the study, the levels at Carney School were nearly twice that mark.

Residents don't have a lot of patience when it comes to waiting for the results of more studies "I am not prepared to wait 15 years for study after study" exclaimed one man "I want to see some action!" His message was repeated by others who expressed frustration at waiting for the science before any measures are taken. One man asked how many others in the crowd could match or top the more than one thousand dollars he has spent so far this month for medications to cope with asthma. There were no takers.

Dave Sutherland of the Ministry of the Environment told the group their voices are welcome "We are trying to do the science, we are trying to find out stack by stack just who is putting what into the air, we're trying to come up with the technical solutions, but ultimately they will cost money and there will be economic implications so there will be discussions about what the trade off is. The public needs to express itself on what direction it wants to go. So I am really glad to see this tonight."

Some of the Questions:

Who makes the rules? In the case of asphalt plants, it was explained the plants fall under a "regulation" which means as long as the standards are being met, there is little that can be done, unless of course the people want to press the government to change the standards. (see Asphalt Plants To Develop Plan)
Who is responsible for what? The Ministry of the Environment is responsible for air shed issues as they apply to industry, however, the municipality can make those regulations tougher.
When it comes to studies, why re-invent the wheel? While its true Quesnel has already moved into its second phase of an Air Quality Management Plan ( P.G. has yet to unveil it's phase 2 outline) the Quesnel plan can't just be picked up and transposed on to Prince George. "Prince George has a totally different setting, and while the two cities are close when it comes to distance, they are miles apart when it comes to air shed issues" says the Ministry's David Sutherland.
What can be done about open burning of mountain pine beetle debris? The rules for burning land debris can be strengthened through the permits issued by the Fire department.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, October 26, 2006 04:00 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 26 2006 7:35 AM

Science may not be what these people want. A scientific research project can have surprising results. The results of which people won't like.

Here's a sample of what might be found. Did you know that when you bring in your computer for servicing, the tech can tell how clean you keep your house. The most dustiest computers come from the houses that get the most cleaning. The more we clean, the more we stir up fine dust, and therefore the dirtier the air we live in.

Pavement and concrete are major contributors of fine dust that our ancestors didn't have to contend with. When their streets got dusty, they could see it. So they would add oil or water to knock down the dust. Of course we baby Boomers wanted better and now we complain about the results! Hee Hee!

The other indicator that this is really a silly issue is the fact Councillor Brian Skakun is involved. Brian's on your side, you lucky people, Hee hee!

Posted by: active on October 26 2006 8:21 AM

what I heard at the presentation was that 40% of the PM2.5 comes from major industrial sources and just about all total reduced sulphur & sulphur dioxide in our airshed comes from industrial sources northeast of town. Who knows what else as the monitoring pretty much stops there. . . there are other chemicals & the like floating around that aren't really even checked out nor are the effects on human health fully understood.

About what the rules are - not too much now for regulating industry. BC government (our MLAs) responsible for the laws re: industrial emissions. The governing legislation is Environmental Management Act & Waste Discharge Regulation under that Act. Check these out. West Coast Enviro Law has a good discussion of them on their website. Lots of codes of conduct & the like for much industry. There is some permitting & Min.of Environment has responsibility for those permits, however, they don't have the resources to check compliance so rely on major industry to self-report & self-regulate. That is scary. Ministry doesn't have big enough stick to get industry to do much of anything so basically, industry is calling their own shots. . . but that is the price of economy & jobs I guess. . . although we've never in PG done an economic analysis of loss of professionals, contributing citizens, businesses due to bad air. . . and I can't help but wonder about the workers' compensation issues for the people working for some of these industries.

Our MLAs and MPs are responsible for giving our voice in Victoria & Ottawa about inadequate provincial & federal laws. I understand they were invited last night but didn't show up. Not quite sure why.
I could go on and on but suffice it to say, we have reason to be freaked out -- and as for who's responsible? Don't expect that anyone is really watching our air and making sure every breath we & our children breathe is OK for our health - because they're not.

Posted by: Longnecks1 on October 26 2006 10:17 AM

Seems to me the Workers Compenstation Board has all the evidence it needs to protect the workers in these industries.
I would like to know why they do not do anything, exspecially after they went to bat for workers in bars, not having to serve smokers. Making the bars to create smoking rooms and going to all the expense.
Grow ops have systems where you can live next door and not smell anything because of the filters that are available.
If industry was forced to use technology such as filters and what ever to clean the air before they pump it into the atmosphere, maybe we would be a lot healthier. Of course this takes money and these company's do not want to commit to anything.
Again profits are the bottom line and we do not have a government in place that will inforce anything against industry.
It was easy for them to affect bars and resturants as that was sin effect. They knew they would not loose to many votes from doing this.
Can you imagine the government shutting down industry and putting hunderds of people out of work, if industry doesn't conform to regulations.
Sorry folks that's to many votes...so guess we just live and die in our inviroment till time ends. When we finally acknolledge that all over the world that industry is killing the planet...It will be far to late....But at least the big boys club will die rich.....
Not even sure why I typed this comment as know nothing will be done...and everyone will wine and cry about it...for years and years to come... and some government will make all sorts of promises... then lie about it and were stuck for another 5 years...and on and on it goes....
Wow this is depressing....Have a nice day

Posted by: owl on October 26 2006 3:35 PM

The levels of "pollutants" accepted by the MoE in BC, the EPA in the USA, and other regulatory agencies in North America and other similar industrialized countries is a small fraction of what is allowed in the workplace.

Why? One of the reasons is the different frequencies and lengths of exposure. Another is that we are dealing with the general public which includes those typically more susceptible to such exposures - infants, elderly, sick, etc.

Workplace exposure guidelines typically include 30 minute exposures which is the highest concentration from which escape is possible without permanent damage to human health.

In addition there are occupational exposure guidelines for 8 hour work days oover 20 to 30 years.

So, WCB is not involved and the guidelines are useless when it comes to safeguarding the health of the public since the levels are far too high.

Major industries use Best Available Technology which includes "filters" or scrubbers. Depending on the industry, these would include such devices as bags (to filter sawdust for instance), wet scrubbers, electrostatic, a combination of the two, neutralizers, etc.

Here is a quick overview page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrubber

The two pulpmills closest to town have undergone considerable improvements in this area for many years and the emissions can be shown to have been reduced.

However, the systems do not remove 100% of the materials. So, there would be issues of whether they are operated properly so that they are in compliance with intended targets, whether they are, in fact, using the BAT or a lesser version of it.

As everyone knows, the level of pollutants in the air is dependent on the amount of emissions and the weather conditions. If we assume the emissions are constant, the weather conditions vary from season to season and year to year. In addition, we have seen climate changes here which may increase inversions (prevent the proper rising of the pollutants to a high enough level in the atmosphere to be considerably diluted and carried into someone else's backyard).

So, I would assume that if there is an inversion for 5 days and pollutants are largely trapped, that reducing the volume of pollutants emitted will have the effect of increasing the time it takes to reach a set concentration level and may never reach the maximums we used to see for a simlar inversion event prior to reducing the emissions.

If I remember correctly for a few years following the mid 1990's it looked like the air quality in PG had improved. However, looking back on it it appears that it was primarily due to different weather patterns than a reduction of emissions such as the shut down of beehive burners within the city limits.

Posted by: owl on October 26 2006 3:48 PM

Active ... I was there as well and I must make correction to your 40%.

The percentage breakdown given by the Associate Prof. from UNBC was as follows:

40% of the PM2.5 from the Northeast, which would be the pulpmills as well as the refinery.

40% from the BCR and other industrial areas (river road perhaps)

20% from other sources.

I think that was one of the most important pieces of information of the evening. That must be based on some reliable scientific information, or otherwise it would not have been provided. So, the question becomes, what else is needed to take some action? Another 10 years of studies to confirm that the information is verifiable?

Posted by: Palopu on October 26 2006 6:28 PM

North East

(1) Northwood Pulp (Canfor)
(2) Intercontinental Pulp (Canfor)
(3) Prince George Pulp (Canfor)
(4) FMC Corporation (Hydrogen Peroxide Producer)
(5) BC Chemicals.
(6) Husky Oil Refinery
(7) Prince George Sawmill (Canfor)

River Road

(1) The Pas Lumber Co., (Winton Lumber)
(2) Lakeland Mills
(3) Brink Sawmills

BCR Indusrial Area.

(1) North Central Plywood (Canfor)
(2) Rustad Bros Sawmill (Canfor)
(3) Marselex (Produces Sulphuric Acid and SO'2
(4) Carrier Lumber
(5) A couple of smaller Sawmills (Planers)

All the above industries pollute to a larger or lesser degree, however most of them have made major improvements over the years, and I would suspect that they pollute less to-day than they did 10 years ago. So in fact there is probably a marked improvement in air quality over the years.

No new industry has come on stream in the bowl area in the last 10 years that would have a further polluting effect except perhaps the Asphalt Plants, and gravel pits.

I suspect that a large part of the pollution is from dust, vehicle emmissions, and burning of woodwaste in the forests around the City.

No matter where you drive in the bush around Prince George in the logging areas you see hundreds of stacks of wood all piled up and ready to burn each year. (A lot of it good wood) This wood is burned every fall and spring.

It is only recently that the City has started to take road dust a little more seriously, and I might add they were forced to do it through numerous complaints. This has to continue on an ongoing basis.

It doesnt appear that there will be any new industry in the immediate Prince George area for the forseeable future, so I suppose we can assume that Air Quality will not get worse. We know where the pollution comes from, so one would hope that with some concerted effort by all those Government people who are paid the big bucks to look at and regulate these issues that some solutions can be found. In addition all these Industries tell you on a continuing basis that they are good Corporate Citizens, who make contributions to the United Way, and to UNBC and various and sundry other causes. Maybe they could voluntarily make an effort to further reduce there emissions. Isnt that what a good Corporate Citizen would do, or will they have to be forced.

There should not be any attempt by the City to build a wood burning Co-Generating plant at the East End of the City to heat water to heat some Government and Private business buildings. This will only add to the pollution and these buildings are already heated by natural gas and should remain so. If a Co-Generation plant is built to generate electricity to hook into the Hydro lines, it should be built South of the City, and if it is done by the City the money generated should go to reducing our Hydro bills. We all know that the only reason this project is proposed, is because it is supposedly a Green Project and therefore would qualify for funding from the Federal and Provincial Governments. If we allow this to be built at the East End of 3or4th Avenue just to spend money, then we deserve to breath bad air.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 26 2006 8:14 PM

Longnecks1 - "..they went to bat for workers in bars, not having to serve smokers."

You are wrong. The servers did not like WCB involvement one bit and never ever asked WCB to get involved. Since the day WCB stepped in, the bars are not worth owning anymore, and lots of workers don't make anything close to the money they used to.

WCB will never pay a claim for the effects of second hand smoke, as it is unprovable. It was just politics by a bunch of busy body jerks that haven't been to the smokeless bars after screwing everyone over.

However, there is no way the government is going to let a bunch of whiners shut down industry.

Oh, just so you know, I'm a non smoker, and I really object to anyone blowing smoke my face. And that goes double for anyone blowing bull in my face!

Posted by: owl on October 26 2006 10:08 PM

"I suspect that a large part of the pollution is from dust, vehicle emmissions, and burning of woodwaste in the forests around the City."

Wrong ... go to the back of the class.

Posted by: owl on October 26 2006 10:11 PM

"It is only recently that the City has started to take road dust a little more seriously>

That was more than 10 years ago when they did not water down the road when they were sweeping. So, they swept downtown at night and during conversions and the PM10 numbers hit the roof ... as in the 300 region averaged over 24 hours. 150 is the allowable limit for 1 hour ....

Posted by: owl on October 26 2006 10:18 PM

Burning of woodwaste around PG largely does not affect PG. It affects the immediate area in the direction of the wind, if the venting is not more or less straight up. So, the local ranchers and other rural dwellers.

It is the same for wood burning appliances in the bowl. The number is miniscule compared to the remainder of the emissions. However, if you are next to someone who has a fireplace or a wood stove, and there is a downdraft which happens to send the smoke into your living room, then you are done for. That was the case with the neighbour's house in relation to my patio door. The chimney and the patio door are about 20 feet apart. The right direction with a downdraft meant I would get a whiff of creasote every time I opened the door and had his fire smoldering overnight.

Posted by: PGL on October 26 2006 10:26 PM

Palopu said ... "No new industry has come on stream in the bowl area in the last 10 years that would have a further polluting effect except perhaps the Asphalt Plants, and gravel pits."

The trouble is that these industries have been imposed on existing residential areas- the idea that residential areas have grown around these industries is ludricrous. And none of the asphalt plants are 'in compliance' with even the wishy-washy regulations that do exist. As residents of PG, we must put up or move out.

The comment that "all these Industries tell you ... they are good Corporate Citizens" is also true- but actions always speak louder than words- and the actions of these industries are appalling.

I doubt if the multinational French company that seems to be at the end of the trail of ownerships of Pitman Asphalt know- or care- about us in PG. Good corporate citizens don't poison their neighbours with VOC emissions, spread gravel/dirt all over roads (driven up Foothills lately past the pits?) or destroy the peace and quiet that existed before.

Unless the City takes some action, we're well on the way to becoming the industrial wasteland that the rest of the province already considers PG to be.

Posted by: owl on October 26 2006 10:28 PM

"We know where the pollution comes from, so one would hope that with some concerted effort by all those Government people who are paid the big bucks to look at and regulate these issues that some solutions can be found."

Wrong again. There have been studies going on for 10+ years trying to pinpoint the sources so that they can go to a company or a sector and say: "aha, you are the culprit so you will need to reduce emissions by 50% in the next 5 years."

Each study has been inconclusive. They are doing speciation studies right now and will not venture to say what the probability of success will be or the risk of another failure leading to more studies.

UNBC is doing several of the studies. Remember tha UNBC is in the business of gathering research grants. The more studies, the more grants. UNBC is not in the business of protecting the public. That is MoE's and MoH's responsibility, and to some extent, the City's.

Palopu, I wonder if you and I could agree that the likelihood of the industrial component of the pollution dropping considerably will have little to do with the actions of the government or the research by UNBC, but more with the forest manufacturing sector's viability.

I think as old plants become outdated, some will be mothballed rather than updated. As newer versions may be seen to be viable once more, they will be built outside the bowl with more land available.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 26 2006 10:31 PM

Lefty says, "Stinky old 2 stroke snowmobiles are to blame for noise and pollution."

You lose again Lefty. Mine is brand new and meets the EPA spec to the year 2012, and that is long after you are looking at the wrong side of the grass! Hee hee!

Posted by: owl on October 26 2006 10:36 PM

"If a Co-Generation plant is built to generate electricity to hook into the Hydro lines, it should be built South of the City."

Too far from the buildings it is intended to serve, plus the normal wind direction is from the south. People typically are unaware if the particulate matter in the city is high. The can smell the hydrogen suphide which comed from the northeast of downtown. In addition, the "smoke" which is primarily visible because much of it is steam and condenses as it hits the cold air of mornings and winters, makes the mills look "bad". They are, in that they produce more tonnage than the BCR does, but their unseen and unsmelled impact on downtown is no more or even less than the BCR.

Posted by: Harbinger on October 27 2006 8:55 AM

Let us TALK about this real soon again. It was real good to talk. Gets ya out of the house in the evening.

Posted by: Palopu on October 27 2006 7:29 PM

Man. I cant beleive some of the responses that you get in these posts.

(1) The reference to good corporate citizens, was facetious. My point was that they will give donations to Universitys, United Way, and other causes, because it gives them good publicity. Its called Public Relations. Most companies will not do anything about pollution unless you beat them with a chain.

(2) The list of the different Corporations North/South/East/West of the City was to show where they are located and why we have pollution. It matters little who is polluting the most. We can get this determined over time. The point is they are ALL polluting to some extent and they are also the Major Employers in the area, and it is not likely that there will be major improvements in the near future

(3) My point on the Co-Generation plant to heat water to heat building was to totally scrap this inane idea as it is stupid. These buildings are already heated by Natural Gas., so why would we want to tear up the streets, re-fit the buildings, generate more pollution just to get some **Green Money** from the other levels of Government. I do agree that it might be conceivable to build a Co-Generation plant strictly to generate electricity to connect with Hydro., because this would provide electricity and also help to get rid of the Beetle Wood. This plant could be located anywhere actually as long as it didnt add to the Citys pollution problem

(4) Owls right in respect to pollution being eliminated because of Corporations shutting down.
A number of the Mills and probably one pulp mill will close down in the next 10 years or so. (Maybe sooner) and as a consequence we will get less pollution. Any new mills will be built closer to the timber supply, ie; West of Prince George, and Northwest. As each year passes Prince George gets further and further away from available Timber.

(5) Drive in the bush once in awhile. This City is completly surrounded by Mills that still have Bee Hive Burners, and they all have slash burning.

North. Two mills and huge logging operations at Bear Lake.(Slash Burning)(Bee Hive Burner)

South. Dunkley Lumber (Bee Hive Burner) and huge logging and slash burning each year.

West. Clear Lake (Bee Hive Burner) and huge logging and slash burning each year.

West. Canfor Isle Pierre (Bee Hive Burner) and huge logging and slash burning each year.

I think we are surrounded Owl and unless you have control of the Wind some of the pollution from burning will come to Prince George.

In addition there is all the pollution from forest fires;

I suggest that we know where the pollution is coming from. We would have to be pretty stupid not to know. We only have to look out our windows every morning. To suggest that we have to pinpoint it, is a Government, Business, ploy to keep us looking. This is the 21st Century. If we wanted to pinpoint the pollution we could do it.

As far as your neibour having a woodstove is concerned, it might help you to know that every house in Prince George from the 40's to the early sixties had wood burning and coal burning stoves. 75% of the population smoked in their homes, which along with the wood burning stoves should have killed off all the children with second hand smoke, however it never happened, and most of those children lived to a ripe old age. I wouldnt worry to much about dying from woodsmoke. If your fears were warranted every native in North Western BC would be dead, as they all had wood burning stoves for years, and most still do.

Its something like saying you could die from having a hangnail. A bit of overkill I would say.

Posted by: kagee on October 28 2006 11:00 AM

I'm tired of hearing that the mills, etc. are cleaner than before. Yes the fly ash is gone, but I could not breath the fly ash into my lungs. The very fine particulates from the mills on River Road are so fine that they can only be seen when the light is at a certain angle. That is now added to the air shed.

The sulfur readings have gone up over the last three years and the Oil refinery has expanded over the same period. Even if they have clean up the amount of pollution per litre produced, we will still end up with higher pollution seeing that they have expanded.

As for wood vs gas for heating our houses, gas also gives of pollution. We some times have the mentality that smoke is dirty and steam is clean. But if you cooled the steam from the pulp mills into water, that water would kill you.

Posted by: owl on October 28 2006 11:04 AM

I do not buy arguments about what used to be .... what used to be is that the life expectancy used to be lower.

Which brings on the philosophical argument of whether it is good to live longer and who is it good for; and whether we are getting too obsessed with living longer.

Someone who knows the vital stats reminded me recently that air pollution does not even show up on the screen when one looks at what kills people that we have some control over - vehicular accidents, diet, smoking, alcohol, illicit drugs.

We are living now and it is my life we are talking about when we talk about the neighbour who used to burn wood. It is me that was choking and could not enjoy my deck. I don't give a rat's ass about how long I live. It is the moment I am talking about.

When I am in front of a campfire and the wind blows the smoke of a poorly stoked fire in my direction, I move. Again, I am not concerned about whether I live another 3 minutes, I am concerned about my comfort at the time.

As far as natives in North America are concerned, I hope we all realize that they have a much lower life expectancy than caucasians, for a whole number of reasons, which may include them eating smoke.

Since no one seems to have brought it out, and it is time we brought that into the argument when discussing air quality, the air quality in houses is typically worse then the air quality outside. Today's more airtight house construction make matters even worse, not only for people, but also for the building.

Posted by: Palopu on October 28 2006 10:28 PM

So whats your point Owl. Should we all make special arrangements so that your life will be wonderful. Maybe we shouldnt beep our horns when you are sleeping. Or stand aside in the grocery store when you are shopping. Anything else we can do for you. Is there some way we can control the down drafts, to keep the smoke off your porch. Maybe we can get some sheep to eat our grass so that our lawmowers wont wake you up in the morning, or during your afternoon map. It appears you do not give a rats ass about a lot of things.