ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD Province of British Columbia

Transcription

1 ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD Province of British Columbia APPEAL NO. 89/36 WASTE Appeal against the granting of Permit No. VA-407 under the provisions of the Waste Management Act to Grandview Blacktop Limited for the discharge of air contaminants from an asphalt plant located at No-6 Road, Richmond, B.C., dated August 11, 1989, and granted by the District Director, Greater Vancouver Regional District. The appeal was heard under Sections 26 and 28 of the Waste Management Act and Section 11 of the Environment Management Act. REGISTERED APPELLANT The Corporation of the Township of Richmond 6911 No. 3 Road Richmond, B. C. V6Y 2C1 HEARING DETAILS The hearing was held on March 21, 1990, at the Media Centre, Robson Square, Vancouver; beginning at 9:30 a.m. The appeal was heard by a Panel of the Environmental Appeal Board. Board members were: Dr. William Godolphin - Chairman Mr. Andrew J. Lynch - Member Mr. Harry Hunter - Member Ms. Joan Godfrey acted as Recorder for the proceedings. REGISTERED APPELLANT The Corporation of the Township of Richmond. Spokesman: Mr. Kelvin Higo Chief Public Health Inspector Environmental Health Division PERMIT HOLDER Grandview Blacktop Limited represented by Eric T. Thomson, Counsel Witnesses: Dr. Jofre Berry Chemical Testing Consultant Nicolas Santorelli Project Manager, Vice President and Director of Grandview Blacktop

2 GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT EXHIBITS: DISTRICT DIRECTOR represented by Mr. R.P. Sloman, Counsel Witness Robert Smith Asst. District Director No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 A blue 3-ring binder containing a submission to the Environmental Appeal Board, dated March 21, 1990, prepared by Kelvin Higo, followed by documents under Tabs Nos. 1 to 29. A letter from Grandview Blacktop dated July 10, 1989, addressed to J.B. Mills, District Director, regarding Grandview Blacktop Ltd. Waste Management Act Approval No. AP Final Report on Proposed Additional Pollution Control Equipment, and signed by Nicolas Santorelli. A black 3-ring binder containing the presentation to the Environmental Appeal Board by the District Director for the Greater Vancouver Regional District with respect to the issuance of permit under the Waste Management Act to Grandview Blacktop Ltd., March 21, 1990, prepared by Robert S. Smith, Asst. District Director, and followed by documents under Tabs Nos. 1 to 32. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL In their Notice of Appeal dated September 11th, 1989, The Corporation of the Township of Richmond stated they would provide evidence showing that the Permittee exceeded the emission requirements consistently throughout a 12-month period; they would show that at least nine approvals (AP - 115) were issued during this period at the end of which Grandview Blacktop Ltd. was still unable to meet the maximum discharge criteria set by the G.V.R.D.; and that it was their position that the present air emissions permit,(that is, the one under appeal) be rescinded until such time as the permittee can demonstrate compliance with the emission criteria. SUMMARY OF APPELLANT'S PRESENTATION: Kelvin Higo introduced Exhibit No. 1 and read his submission from it. He traced the history of operation of Grandview Blacktop from October, 1986 to the present, and gave evidence of several occasions when Grandview Blacktop had been in violation of their permits to discharge air contaminants. He pointed out that there had been serious discrepancies between the emission tests as performed by Grandview's consultants, and those found by the G.V.R.D. He gave evidence of numerous complaints and two petitions in 1988 and 1989 from residents complaining of the dust, odour, and noise coming from the asphalt plant. He gave evidence of a history of modifications to the asphalt plant proposed and implemented, which either because they were inadequate or had been inadequately implemented or improperly maintained, had not been sufficient to reduce the emissions to the level permitted.

3 He requested that the permit be amended to require monthly emission monitoring and that these be audited by the G.V.R.D by their own sampling and emission monitoring, and that the G.V.R.D. immediately withdraw this permit if the emission monitoring results do not meet the requirements. SUMMARY OF PERMIT HOLDER'S PRESENTATION; Nicolas Santorelli introduced Exhibit 2. He described various changes that had been made to the plant, including a wet scrubber, a pugmill mixer, and a lazy stack, all of which were intended to reduce emissions from the asphalt plant. He said that this had been done at a cost of $315,000 to Grandview. He said that the conflicting emission test results from Grandview's consultant and those of G.V.R.D. had caused confusion and resulted in their continued operation, although in violation of the permit emission requirements. He claimed that the most recent tests showed a particulate content of 143 mg/m 3 and negligible hydrocarbons, and said that with the final installation of the lazy stack, which they expected to have complete and tested before March 31, 1990, this level would be brought below the permit requirements of 120 mg/m 3. Dr. Jofre Berry became involved in June, 1989, with negotiations between G.V.R.D. and the Permit Holder regarding test procedures. He described the discrepancy between Grandview's consultants and the G.V.R.D. test results as being due to a modification to the method which resulted in Grandview's consultants, tests giving a lower result than that of the G.V.R.D. He said that he thought the prescribed test method was technologically outdated and that he doubted its validity. On crossexamination, he agreed that the analytical method as used by the G.V.R.D. which showed Grandview to be in violation of the permit as opposed to the results of their consultants was, nevertheless, the correct and prescribed method as required under the terms of the Waste Management Act and the appropriate pollution control objectives. SUMMARY OF THE G.V.R.D. PRESENTATION Mr. Robt. Smith, Assistant District Director, introduced Exhibit No. 3 and read his presentation from it. He described the history of an earlier approval AP-115, for Grandview Blacktop's operation, and noted the complaints of residents, and subsequent testing by the GVRD pollution control officers that showed Grandview to be in violation of the requirements under that approval. These were due, at least in part, to Grandview's improper maintenance of settling ponds, mixing drum temperature calibration, and wet scrubber water pressure. He described the eventual clarification of the noted differences between Grandview Blacktop's consultants test results and those of the G.V.R.D., which led to the confirmation of the procedure used by the G.V.R.D., and indicated that further plant upgrading was required by Grandview. He further described the equipment modifications that were required for Permit VA- 407, and that these were now complete and initial observations by G.V.R.D. pollution control officers indicated that it was operating efficiently with little generation of odours. On cross-examination, he said it was possible to have odours emanating from asphalt storage tanks as well as the stack, that there had been no complaints that

4 he knew of since the new equipment had been installed in December, 1989, that the settling tanks were now properly maintained, and that Grandview Blacktop were limited to 12 hours of operation per day. He said that G.V.R.D.'s initial observations were based on opacity, and that they had not yet done further tests. He said that the testing method which was approved by G.V.R.D. was similar to that used in other jurisdictions. He noted that Grandview Blacktop's "history is checkered" but that there appears to have been much improvement recently. On re-examination of Permit Holder, Nicolas Santorelli said that with regard to the hours of operation, this year they had never started before 8:00 in the morning, and had not worked past noon. On cross-examination, he said that with upcoming contracts, they expected to operate no more than eight hours per day. SUMMATIONS: Permit Holder: Mr. Thomson said that the long delay in compliance with the permit was due to confusion in the testing. The equip-ment has now been installed and the indications are that the standards and conditions will be met by March 31, He said the process had worked in that consultation between G.V.R.D. and the Permit Holder had resulted in modifications to the plant which would be able to operate within the conditions of the permit. He said that the G.V.R.D. has the necessary remedies available to it should there be non-compliance, and so he concluded that there was no need to change the terms of the permit as it is presently constituted. District Director, G.V.R.D. Mr. Sloman said that the G.V.R.D. is prepared to carry out testing on April 30th and June 30th in recognition of the circumstances of this case and the "checkered" background of Grandview Blacktop. He noted that the request to have the District Director cancel the permit is not possible under the present legislation and he assured the Board that if enforcement is required, it would be taken. The Appellant Mr. Higo requested assurance for the future that if Grandview does not comply, they will be shut down. He noted that although over 10 approvals had been granted, they still had not met the requirements and that there were additional sources of odour from other places on the site such as storage tanks. He suggested testing requirements be added for September 30th in addition to those suggested by the G.V.R.D. on April 30th and June 30th. He agreed that only the Minister could withdraw permits but he wished that the G.V.R.D. would submit such a recommendation promptly if Grandview Blacktop were found to be in noncompliance. In reply to the above summation, Mr. Sloman for the G.V.R.D. said that no direction to the G.V.R.D. was required with regards to making recommendations in the case of non-compliance because they would act appropriately. Mr. Thomson for the Permit Holder stated that monthly testing by the Permit Holder would be too onerous.

5 The hearing was adjourned about 12:30 p.m. DECISION: The evidence before the Board indicates that for a period of about three years, Grandview Blacktop have operated asphalt plants which continually exceeded permitted discharge of air contaminants. The resulting odours and dust caused many complaints to various authorities by the residents of the area. The litany of consultations, confused test results and piece-meal changes that may have finally brought Grandview Blacktop's plant up to a standard required by the permit can be but little satisfaction to those neighbours most immediately affected. The Board agrees that Grandview's history in this matter is indeed "checkered". The Board orders that the Permit VA-407 be modified in SCHEDULE C, PAGE 1, EMISSION NUMBER 01, by adding under DUE DATES, the date August 31, 1990 after June 30, 1990 for the requirement to measure discharge rate and concentration of particulate matter including hexane extractable matter described in Schedule F of this Permit. In addition, this Permit shall be modified in SCHEDULE G, PAGE 1, EMISSION NUMBER 01, by adding under COMPLETION DATE: March 31, June 30, and August 31, 1990, and under DESCRIPTION OF WORKS/PROCEDURES, the following order: A continuous written record of temperatures (for example, temperature chart recordings or summary thereof), to document compliance with the requirement for temperatures not to exceed 285-F, shall be provided or made available to the District Director, G.V.R.D. In addition to the above orders, the Board requests that the District Director, G.V.R.D. carry out additional emission monitoring on April 30, 1990 and July 31, Subject to the above, the permit is confirmed and the appeal denied. Wm. Godolphin, Ph.D. Panel Chairman, Environmental Appeal Board April 18, 1990