Clear Full Forecast

Mayor's Task Force Makes 31 Recommendations

By 250 News

Monday, October 29, 2007 09:02 PM

                

Prince George, B.C. -  The long awaited interim report from the Mayor’s Task force on Air quality has been presented to  Prince George City Council and it makes  31 recommendations.

The task force  found that air quality is  having an impact not ony on the health of the residents, but on the economic health of the City as the quality of the air is  becoming a factor when people make their decision to  move here, stay here develop new industry here.

The report notes that Prince George has one of the worst Pm levels in the province. According to the latest information, the only community with levels that are worse, is Quesnel.  The Canada Wide Standard (CWS) states a community’s air must not exceed 30 µg/m3 of PM2.5 more than an average of seven days per year over three years to meet that standard.

In 2003 Prince George exceeded 30 µg/m3 on fifteen days.

In 2004 the standard was exceeded on fourteen days. Currently, however, Prince George is in compliance with the CWS for PM2.5.

The report says initial information suggest the largest percentage of particulate matter is coming from the northeast,  which is the location of the  pulp mills and the refinery.  Further studies   will need to be done to clarify the amount of particulate coming from individual sites.

When it comes to industry,  the Task Force  looked at total emissions and the intensity of emissions (emissions per unit of production). Good information was available for and provided by the pulp industry, while less certain information was available in the sawmill industry.

For the pulp industry, the report’s findings indicate two of the mills in town could make some improvements.  The emissions per unit of production from pulp mills in Prince George are within the range of those reported elsewhere in North America and in Europe. Per unit production of PM is above average at the Northwood and the PG Pulp mills (but not the highest of those mills compared), and below average for the Intercontinental mill. The European Union has established a range between 0.2 to 0.5 kg/ADt (kilograms of emissions per Air Dried tonnes of pulp production) for total particulate matter – a range that it considers achievable for kraft pulp mills. In Prince George, only the Intercontinental mill’s particulate matter emissions fall within this range.

As for the Husky Refinery, its emissions of particulate matter are among the lowest in total and based on a per unit basis of the twelve refineries examined. The emissions of SO2, however, ranked third highest of the twelve refineries based on per unit of production basis.

There wasn’t as much information available for sawmills and the Task force says it was difficult to compare emissions from Prince George sawmills with those in other areas, but from the information gathered would emissions of particulate matter from Prince George sawmills are within the range of those from other facilities in Canada.

1. Create and fund a paid coordinator position with a dedicated mandate to facilitate and support the air quality management planning committee structure as well as coordinate outreach, public education and funding initiatives as needed. This person could serve as Executive Director of the PGAQIC and either be a City Staff person or an employee of the PGAQIC.

2. Include formal, ongoing funding for air quality planning and management in local and provincial operating budgets. This funding would cover payment of the coordinator’s salary, as well as operational and some basic research costs.

3. Assess the results of the studies that are currently underway to understand PM and TRS, and use them to guide air quality management – specifically the development of Phase Three of the Air Quality Management Plan.

4. PGAQIC should work with industry and the BC Ministry of Environment to set out targets as well as timelines to reduce industrial emissions of PM that are shown (by modelling and other studies) to have significant impact on ambient air quality. Targets should cumulatively keep Prince George in compliance with the CWS for PM2.5 in the short term, and lower the impact of these sources on annual average ambient values by 40% over 2006 levels by 2016. These targets and timelines would be accompanied by a lowering of the allowed emissions specified in the BC Ministry of Environment Permits.

6. Work with the Ministry of Environment (MoE) to align the information, assessment and approval processes of the City and province, so that City approvals and permits do not proceed until all provincial approvals and permits are issued to the proponent.
7. Full assessments of the impacts on air quality of emerging developments such as the inland container port, the airport expansion and increased biomass burning, as well as future developments, should be part of the development and approval process.
8. Work with the Regional District and MoE to determine the effects of all potential emissions from the areas considered in the heavy industry land use study (e.g. the proposed industrial plant, related commercial transportation such as truck and rail, and employee commuting).
9. Request the Union of BC Municipalities conduct a review of provincial legislation and make recommendations to the provincial government on how local governments’ authority and available tools (e.g. development permits) may be amended to better deal with air quality.
10. Provide direction to City administration to incorporate the recommendations from Phase Two of the Prince George Air Quality Management Plan into the Clean Air Bylaw.
11. Review the effectiveness of bylaw enforcement procedures related to the Clean Air Bylaw, and establish a clear policy available to the public.
12. Establish a formal “Open and Controlled Burning Committee” for the Prince George area, including provincial (Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forests), municipal, fire, and regional representatives in order to assure better communications and to formalize a procedure for decision making.
13. Begin episode management by first implementing the episode management recommendations from the Phase One and Two Air Quality Management Plan. Then follow through by enacting the plans contained in those recommendations.
14. PGAQIC should hold regular, informal briefings with City Council and Regional District Board, including producing a publicly available annual report.
15. Review the existing air quality management committee structure to determine its effectiveness, transparency and its ability to meet the needs of air quality management planning in Prince George.
16. Provide annual training for committee members in collaborative and consensus-based approaches to decision making.
17. Revise the management plans to include measurable outcomes and timelines (process and outcome indicators).
18. Request that the provincial government create a PM2.5 Standard that will be one of the factors upon which air quality advisories in Prince George are issued.
19. Request that the PGAQIC provide feedback on the Open Burning Smoke Control Regulations currently under review.
20. Coordinate public education programs with community groups, governmental agencies and educational institutions.
21. Add an “Education and Awareness Working Group” to the current air quality management structure that will make community education and awareness a priority.
22. Include public education and community engagement as part of Phase Three of the management plan to ensure that public outreach is extensive and ongoing.
23. Actively engage the public by holding an annual general meeting of all committees that is open to the public and provide a mechanism to receive input and comments from the public at all times.
24. Produce annual air quality reports more promptly.
25. Revise the City’s economic development strategy to pursue forms of business development and job creation that do not adversely affect air quality.
26. Explore the application of eco-industrial principles with local industry, as part of an overall strategy to reduce emissions.
27. The Regional District should review the City of Prince George Clean Air Bylaw and implement a similar policy with respect to indoor and outdoor wood burning appliances as recommended in Phase Two of the Air Quality Management Plan.
28. The PGAQIC should work with the City and Provincial governments to provide and implement incentives to remove older wood stoves and replace them with CSA/EPA certified stoves as part of an ongoing program. The offering of “Burn it Smart” and other educational initiatives on clean burning should be continued and expanded.
29. At a minimum, maintain or, as needed, add to the current monitoring network.
30. Add a mobile monitoring unit to the monitoring system.
31. Formalize a procedure to include significant polluters that do not require a permit from the Ministry of Environment in the Monitoring Working group
The report says there are new issues emerging which need to be explored  such as, the increased truck and train traffic with the new intermodal  site at the CN yard on First avenue, the expansion of the Airport and  burning of mountain pine beetle slash. 

Councilors Brian Skakun  and Deborah Munoz both called for a ring road to skirt the city and reduce the amount of emissions from  vehicular traffic.  Munoz also called for  air quality issues to be part of the development  process.

Councilor Murry Krause  thanked the  Task Force  for their work and  appreciated the recommendation that a special air quality "coordinator" be hired.  While Krause says this recommendation has budgetary implications, "It is too important not to move ahead with that item."

Mayor Colin Kinsley says he looks forward to the  final report and anticipates  senior Staff are already planning for the  2008 budget.  "I’m guessing that the coordinator position is  in the mix "  How do we proceed with the next step with the regulator ( the Mininstry of the  Environment).

The next stage of this report sees the Task Force gathering more public input on the interim report through:

There are three questions being posed for input:

  • What did we get right?
  • What did we get wrong?
  • What did we miss?

A public  input session has been set for November 5th at the Civic Centre starting at 7.p.m. there is also a session set for this Saturday from  10 - 4 at the Bob Harkins Library.

All public input is expected to  be collected by November 16th  and the  final report with the public consultation results will be incorporated in the final report which will be presented to Council in December.


Previous Story - Next Story

Email Email | Print Print | Share on Facebook Facebook | Tweet! Twitter | Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 09:02 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home
NetBistro

Comments

Comment Posted by: Chester on October 29 2007 9:29 PM
At least we have some wheels in motion. Finally we seem to be moving ahead. My sinus and lungs thank you. Chester
Comment Posted by: NMG on October 29 2007 10:42 PM
Agreed. I think it is now vitally important for concerned residents to read the report and provide feedback. It's our City, let's do something about it!
Comment Posted by: pglady on October 29 2007 11:30 PM
Tried to do the web survey but the site is not working
Comment Posted by: owl on October 29 2007 11:37 PM
What did we get right?

Most if not all the stuff in the recommendations

What did we get wrong?
Forgot the one about monitoring the implementation of the recommendsations. That is the key.

What did we miss?
Did not recommned the creation of an organization which can actually implement change. The existing committee is to be reviewed. We do not need a review, we need a recommendation of a reporting structure which identifies clear authority and clear responsibility for action.

That has been the problem all along.

Also, the money for a co-ordinator is not going to make too many changes. Considerably more money will be required to create change.

Hopefully not too many will breathe a sigh of relief. I see no relief yet. I see recommendations which I have seen before and nothing happened. What assurances will we have that something will happen this time? I see no such assurances.
Comment Posted by: owl on October 29 2007 11:39 PM
"Tried to do the web survey but the site is not working"

maybe next year ....
Comment Posted by: owl on October 29 2007 11:42 PM
"In 2004 the standard was exceeded on fourteen days. Currently, however, Prince George is in compliance with the CWS for PM2.5."

Prince George? ... you mean Plaza 400 and Gladstone. There are no other PM2.5 monitors in the City. The area which has the most excedances for PM10 is the BCR monitor. That station does not monitor PM2.5

I see no recommendation about putting a PM2.5 monitor there.
Comment Posted by: owl on October 29 2007 11:50 PM
{url]http://www.airqualityontario.com/reports/aqisearch.cfm?stationid=56051&startmonth=all[/url]

That is part of the web site for air quality in Ontario. You will note that they show PM2.5, not PM10. You will also note that they have good historical information they make available.

The recommendations for PG do not delve into the poor quality of provincial reporting to the general public.
Comment Posted by: Chadermando on October 30 2007 3:19 AM
Lots of per unit of production emission talk, but little in the way of the totality of emissions in relation to the uniqueness of the local airshed weather patterns.

It echo's the conservtive emissions policy, as opposed to the Kyoto type of measuring totalily of emissions.
Comment Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 30 2007 8:07 AM
At least we have one part of the city that should see a decline in property value. The BCR will have to shut down on air Q days. No way around it, too much dust. No one is likely to pave the whole BCR site, or pay for the storm water run off controls. Or keep the pavement washed.

Deb should probably amend the OCP to residential development there now that the BCR future is in doubt. Some of the mills are getting pretty old anyway and this may be the excuse to walk away from it all. Those mill workers won't mind looking for another job I assume because they are expendable when it comes to meeting targets. Maybe they can all get government cheques?

From what I remember of Debora's harangue last night she didn't like all them diesel trucks either. She stated that one truck isn't so bad but getting 1,000 trucks is too much for the PG airshed.
I think we better save that one truck for the grocery wagon. Are we going to see Debora issue ration cards for air and groceries? Gee, I wonder if Deb will give me a card? Heehee!
Comment Posted by: owl on October 30 2007 9:09 AM
I have yet to see a plant shut down in this city due to its negative impact on air quality. I am relatively confident we will not see that happen in the forseeable futures, let's say in the next 20 years.

Plants will also not shut down because the property they build on will loose value. In fact, as plants shut down for other reasons, there will be more incentive for new plants to want to go into that very location due to lower land values.

As we are seeing, plants will shut down because of negative impact of currency exchange rates with primary market areas, cahnges in markets, and lack of feedstock.

Just thought I would let you know in case you have not been following the news and hiding under a snowmobile instead.
Comment Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 30 2007 5:13 PM
You can't have it both ways Owl.

Make up your mind. Are you going after industry to shut them down and make their land and investment worthless? So are you saying you won't?

You seem to be a little confused about what's happening. It's not about the last 20 years, but the future and the impact of what you are hoping happens that is the concern.

If Councillor Deb gets her way there will be no new industry where one shuts down. Clearly an industrial ghetto is the obvious result. I don't see why this would concern you. A word of advise though, sell your stock in any local companies first.
Comment Posted by: Norm1 on October 30 2007 5:43 PM
owl said:
___________________________

"Prince George? ... you mean Plaza 400 and Gladstone. There are no other PM2.5 monitors in the City. The area which has the most excedances for PM10 is the BCR monitor. That station does not monitor PM2.5"

__________________________________

I notice that all the reporting in this topic refers to PM 2.5..I was not aware that PM 2.5 is being reported anywhere in Prince George.

I thought that these stations only reported the PM10....larger particle counts.

Am I wrong?

If PM 10 is only reported, how are we able to find out what the more harmful PM 2.5 count is?

Am I just out to lunch and not reading the AQI and AQHI information correctly??

Comment Posted by: NMG on October 30 2007 6:26 PM
"Are you going after industry to shut them down and make their land and investment worthless?"

I would submit that we should be going after industry to make them ACCOUNTABLE and to ensure that what they are releasing into the air-shed, isn't causing undue health impacts to the people that live here.

If THEY make the decision that they are unwilling and/or unable to upgrade their facilities to meet the conditions that we decide are necessary, then that is THEIR decision to make.

And no, profits for the shareholders and wages for the people that work at the heavy industrial facilities do not trump the tens of thousands of other people that live here. Just my opinion of course. The soccer moms that drive one ton diesel 4x4's to and from the shopping mall may have a different opinion. Check that, their husbands may have a different opinion, LOL :)


Comment Posted by: owl on October 30 2007 8:00 PM
Norm 1 ....

PM2.5 monitors are in place at Plaza 400 and at Gladstone.....

The province does nto reprot on PM2.5, it reports on PM10....

Ontario has already changed and reports on PM2.5 ...

Getting up to today's technology is not only a matter of the City, but also a matter of the province falling in step. The Minstries of the Environment and Health have to realize the world is moving and they are not.

Gladstone figures are available from the MoE since February 2005 and figures from Plaza 400 from November 1997.

Phone their office and they will run any reasonable type of comparative summary for you ... it is available on an hourly basis.
Comment Posted by: owl on October 30 2007 8:03 PM
BTW, there is no PM2.5 monitor in the BCR. Time they got one there. It has the worst PM10 record of any of the monitors in town. In my opinion the worst culprit for college heights residents is not the Pulp Mill area but the BCR.
Comment Posted by: owl on October 30 2007 8:15 PM
"You can't have it both ways Owl."

I most certainly can!!!!! and so can everyone else in PG ....

Cities change over time. It is time this City becomes one of those that does so as well.

When a bypass is no longer a bypass because developed land close to the bypass has jumped over the bypass and the bypass becomes a local arterial more than a bypass, it is time to build a new bypass.

It happens in any growing city.

The same with industrial land. When heavy industry becomes surrounded by residential areas, and this city is not the only one where that has happened, then it is time to provide for future growth for that industry in a location more remote from residences.

It is not a matter of who was there first. It is not a matter of loosing jobs. It is a matter of keeping jobs and bringing new jobs in.

I really do not know why that is so difficult for people to understand.

I keep repeating myself. We have just had a brand new pellet plant being built to replace one that was 10 years old. Yes ... 10 years old. Shut down, and a new one built. If appropriate land had been ready it would have been built on that land. But this City and this province were not ready. This Ity is not a forward thinking city, it is reactive rather than proactive. Therefore, we have a brand new plant, spewing out more particulates than any other single industrial source in the BCR, closer to College Heights than the old plant.

It's called SMART planning. Really SMART!!!! It is one of the reason why Deborah is saying what she is saying, re-election campaign or not. She is the ONLY one who is displaying any smarts in this area as far as I am concerned.

Go get your snowmobile ready for the winter YDPC.
Comment Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on October 30 2007 11:19 PM
The sled was ready when I put it away, just waiting...

So I have lots of time to watch what is going on. I'm one of the lucky ones, I was born in PG and still live, work and play here. Probably be buried beside my dad downtown, and that will be the day I move into the bowl.

I seem to be the only one in this discussion that isn't sick. I eat my greens and don't smoke, but I did everything wrong, smoked, lived in second hand smoke, grew up in mills around PG, and later worked in those same mills, and played in the soot packed air chambers under the beehive burner on Saturdays when the fires had cooled enough to go under.

So excuse me if I don't see anything wrong with PG.
Comment Posted by: owl on October 31 2007 12:26 AM
It is not about you YDPC ... it is about the general population and it is about the current and future generation.

I grew up in Ottawa at a time when the EB EDDY match factory and Pulp and Paper mill were within one mile of Parliament Hill and downtown. We could smell the money on more days than I ever smelled it here. My parents both smoked so I grew up with plenty of second hand smoke. I never did since my lungs responded the way they should and rejected the smoke.

Both my parents are still alive and in their eighties and none appear to have health problems attributable particulates whether from industry or from their habits.

So, you share that side of the bell curve with them. Others are not that lucky and are on the other side of the bell curve.

The mill relocated some 30 years ago to the north east of town and the smell of money now only comes from the mint. So, the jobs are still there, except for the part about increased efficiency which is actually the greatest culprit in the loss of such manufacturing jobs. The industrial side of the city has expanded considerably into the knowledge industry, the high tech sector. No one predicted that in the 60's except possibly the few who worked in at Computing Devices, Northern Telecom, Atomic Energy, and other such precursors to the high tech industry.

I defy anyone to predict where the jobs in the GPGA will be in 40 years. I do, however, suspect that in 40 years the population here will have increased substantially, will be considerably more multicultural and will be considerably more self sustaining and much more plugged into the rest of the world economy than it is presently.

On the assumption that there is not some major world catastrophy over which we have no control, this place will not become a ghost town like Barkerville.

The way we lay out our urban environment and the way we promote recreation sites in the surrounding region will have a lot to do with the level of influx of people to this area.