GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT …...Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner Planning, Policy and...

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE

REGULAR MEETING

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

1:00 PM 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia

A G E N D A1 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 April 6, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda That the Climate Action Committee adopt the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for April 6, 2016 as circulated.

2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 March 2, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes That the Climate Action Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held March 2, 2016 as circulated.

3. DELEGATIONS 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Integrated Regional Climate Action Strategy Verbal Report Designated Speakers: Roger Quan, Director, Air Quality and Climate Change Elisa Campbell, Director, Regional Planning and Electoral Area Services Planning, Policy and Environment Department

5.2 Metro Vancouver Staff Submission to the B.C. Climate Leadership Plan, Phase II

Engagement Designated Speaker: Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner Planning, Policy and Environment Department

1 Note: Recommendation is shown under each item, where applicable.

March 29, 2016

Climate Action Committee -

Climate Action Committee Regular Agenda April 6, 2016

Agenda of 3

That the GVRD Board write to the Minister of Environment conveying its support for the Metro Vancouver Phase II staff submission on the Provincial Climate Leadership Plan.

5.3 New Canadian Air Quality Management System and Implications for Metro Vancouver Designated Speaker: Roger Quan, Director, Air Quality and Climate Change Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Climate Action Committee receive for information the report dated March 15, 2016, titled “New Canadian Air Quality Management System and Implications for Metro Vancouver”.

5.4 Manager’s Report

Designated Speaker: Roger Quan, Director, Air Quality and Climate Change Planning, Policy and Environment Department That the Climate Action Committee receive for information the report dated March 29, 2016, titled “Manager’s Report”.

6. INFORMATION ITEMS

6.1 Correspondence re: Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Woodfibre LNG Project Near Lions Bay dated February 15, 2016

6.2 Correspondence re: Odour Management for Solid Waste Facilities

a. letter from Chair Moore to Mayor Brodie and Council, dated March 4, 2016 b. letter from Mayor Brodie to Chair Moore, dated November 23, 2015

7. OTHER BUSINESS 8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

Note: The Committee must state by resolution the basis under section 90 of the Community Charter on which the meeting is being closed. If a member wishes to add an item, the basis must be included below.

10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

That the Climate Action Committee adjourn/conclude its regular meeting of April 6, 2016.

Climate Action Committee - Page 2

Climate Action Committee Regular Agenda April 6, 2016

Agenda of 3

Membership:

Corrigan, Derek (C) – Burnaby Reimer, Andrea (VC) – Vancouver Buhr, Karl – Lions Bay Dupont, Laura – Port Coquitlam Harris, Maria – Electoral Area A

Jackson, Lois - Delta Martin, Mary – Surrey Masse, Robert – Maple Ridge Stevenson, Tim – Vancouver

Steves, Harold – Richmond Storteboom, Rudy – Langley City Villeneuve, Judy – Surrey Williams, Bryce – Tsawwassen

Climate Action Committee - Page 3

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) Climate Action Committee held at 1:04 p.m. on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 in the 2nd Floor Boardroom, 4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Mayor Derek Corrigan, Burnaby Vice Chair, Councillor Andrea Reimer, Vancouver (arrived at 1:10 p.m.) Mayor Karl Buhr, Lions Bay Councillor Laura Dupont, Port Coquitlam Director Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Mayor Lois Jackson, Delta Councillor Mary Martin, Surrey Councillor Robert Masse, Maple Ridge Councillor Harold Steves, Richmond Councillor Rudy Storteboom, Langley City MEMBERS ABSENT: Councillor Tim Stevenson, Vancouver Councillor Judy Villeneuve, Surrey Chief Bryce Williams, Tsawwassen STAFF PRESENT: Allan Neilson, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Deanna Manojlovic, Assistant to Regional Committees, Board and Information Services, Legal and

Legislative Services 1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

1.1 March 2, 2016 Regular Meeting Agenda It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Climate Action Committee: a) amend the agenda for its regular meeting scheduled for March 2, 2016 by

adding on-table correspondence from the City of Richmond as Information Item 6.4; and

b) adopt the agenda as amended. CARRIED

2.1

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the GVRD Climate Action Committee held on Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 1 of 5


2. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES

2.1 February 3, 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Climate Action Committee adopt the minutes of its regular meeting held February 3, 2016 as circulated.

CARRIED 3. DELEGATIONS No items presented. 4. INVITED PRESENTATIONS No items presented. 5. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE OR STAFF

5.1 Metro Vancouver Input to the B.C. Climate Leadership Plan, Phase 2 Engagement Report dated February 22, 2016 from Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing an update on the consultation process for the B.C. Climate Leadership Plan (CLP), and outlining the content of Metro Vancouver staff’s proposed submission on the CLP to the Province in the Phase II Engagement period.

1:10 p.m. Councillor Reimer arrived at the meeting. Members offered feedback on the proposed submission as follows: • Provide more information on successful net-zero carbon projects in the region • Clarify that only suitable non-potable water is supported for agricultural uses It was MOVED and SECONDED That the GVRD Board receive for information the report dated February 22, 2016, titled “Metro Vancouver Input to the B.C. Climate Leadership Plan, Phase II Engagement”.

CARRIED



5.2 Update on Environmental Reviews of Major Projects Report dated February 11, 2016 from Laurie Bates-Frymel, Senior Environmental Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, providing an update on Metro Vancouver’s involvement in environmental reviews of major projects. Staff noted an error in the report titled “Update on Environmental Reviews of Major Projects”, on page 2, the last sentence in the section on BURNCO Aggregate Mine Project should be corrected to state that the project is undergoing a federal-provincial review process, not solely a provincial review process. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Climate Action Committee receive for information the report dated February 11, 2016, titled “Update on Environmental Reviews of Major Projects”.

CARRIED

5.3 Addressing Key Air Emission Sources Esther Bérubé, Program Manager, Bylaw and Regulation Development, and Roger Quan, Director, Air Quality and Climate Change, Planning, Policy and Environment, provided a presentation outlining the process and considerations for a 5-year approach to developing air quality regulatory initiatives, highlighting objectives and key elements of the air quality management program; spectrum of air quality initiatives from education and outreach to prohibitions and regulations; factors in determining the most effective approach; development of regulatory initiatives; identification of key air emission sources; and proposed focus on air emission sources in the near, medium and long term. Presentation titled “Addressing Key Air Emission Sources” is retained with the March 2, 2016 Climate Action Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Climate Action Committee receive for information the presentation titled “Addressing Key Air Emission Sources” as presented at its March 2, 2016 meeting.

CARRIED

5.4 Urban Forest Climate Adaptation Guidelines for the Metro Vancouver Region Report dated February 16, 2016 from Erin Embley, Regional Planner, Planning, Policy and Environment, conveying two recently completed resource guides related to the urban forest and climate change: “Urban Forest Climate Adaptation Framework for Metro Vancouver” and “Design Guidebook – Maximizing Climate Adaptation Benefits with Trees”. Members were provided with a presentation on the findings of the Urban Forest Adaptation Project, highlighting: project objectives; regional climate projects and impacts; vulnerability and risk; existing stressors on the urban forest; tools for adaptation; and maximizing climate adaptation benefits with trees.



Presentation titled “Urban Forest Adaptation Project” is retained with the March 2, 2016 Climate Action Committee agenda. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Climate Action Committee receive for information the report dated February 16, 2016, titled “Urban Forest Climate Adaptation Guidelines for the Metro Vancouver Region”.

CARRIED

5.5 Manager’s Report Report dated February 15, 2016 from Allan Neilson, General Manager, Planning, Policy and Environment, updating the Committee on the work plan, regulatory framework for the Vancouver Landfill, and the newly created Regional Planning Advisory Committee Environment Subcommittee and Regional Invasive Species Task Force. It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Climate Action Committee receive for information the report dated February 15, 2016 titled “Manager’s Report”.

CARRIED 6. INFORMATION ITEMS It was MOVED and SECONDED

That the Climate Action Committee receive for information the following Information Items:

6.1 Wood Burning in Region 6.2 Metro Vancouver staff report dated January 30, 2016, titled “Update on the

George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project” 6.3 Metro Vancouver Input to Provincial Climate Leadership Plan Discussion Paper 6.4 On-table correspondence from City of Richmond dated November 23, 2015

regarding odour management for solid waste facilities CARRIED

7. OTHER BUSINESS No items presented. 8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS

No items presented. 9. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

No items presented.



10. ADJOURNMENT/CONCLUSION

It was MOVED and SECONDED That the Climate Action Committee conclude its regular meeting of March 2, 2016.

CARRIED (Time: 3:16 p.m.)

____________________________ ____________________________ Deanna Manojlovic, Derek Corrigan, Chair Assistant to Regional Committees 17609373 FINAL



To: Climate Action Committee From: Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner

Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: March 22, 2016 Meeting Date: April 6, 2016 Subject: Metro Vancouver Staff Submission to the B.C. Climate Leadership Plan, Phase II

Engagement RECOMMENDATION That the GVRD Board write to the Minister of Environment conveying its support for the Metro Vancouver Phase II staff submission on the Provincial Climate Leadership Plan. PURPOSE This report outlines the content of Metro Vancouver staff Phase II submission to the Province on the Climate Leadership Plan and seeks GVRD Board support for those comments via a letter to the Minister of Environment. BACKGROUND The Provincial government is developing a new B.C. Climate Leadership Plan (CLP) and is undertaking a consultation process in that regard. In 2015, Metro Vancouver participated in Phase I of this consultation process, including a staff submission of detailed policy recommendations and GVRD Board support for the staff comments via a letter to the Minister of Environment. At its March 2, 2016 meeting the Climate Action Committee received a report on the Phase II consultation process for the B.C. Climate Leadership Plan. In that report, staff indicated that it would be making a submission prior to the March 25, 2016 deadline and would report back to the Climate Action Committee at its April meeting. In preparing Metro Vancouver’s CLP submission, staff has gathered feedback from municipal staff through the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC), Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) and the Stormwater Interagency Liaison Group (SILG). Since that time, the Province has extended its deadline for submission of comments from March 25th to April 8th, 2016. Metro Vancouver staff have prepared a Phase II submission (attached to this report) which will be sent before the April 8th deadline. The submission is organized around the following key topics, as described in more detail in the following sections:

1) The alignment of Metro Vancouver’s Phase I recommendations with submissions from the public and the recommendations from the Climate Leadership Team;

2) Important gaps in the Climate Leadership Team recommendations; and 3) Recommended changes to the consultation process.

ALIGNMENT OF SUBMISSIONS WITH METRO VANCOUVER’S PHASE I RECOMMENDATIONS Metro Vancouver’s Phase I submissions from the fall of 2015 align closely with the results of the public survey conducted by the Province and written submissions from the public and many stakeholders including other local governments. The staff submission includes a more detailed

5.2


Metro Vancouver Staff Submission to the B.C. Climate Leadership Plan, Phase II Engagement Climate Action Committee Meeting Date: April 6, 2016

Page 2 of 5 analysis of the alignment between the respective submissions and recommendations of Metro Vancouver, the public, and the Climate Leadership Team. The feedback received by the Province reflects the broad support for climate action established in other public opinion polling. Metro Vancouver’s recommendations also align well with the recommendations of the Climate Leadership Team (CLT), the advisory group set up by the Province to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Province as it developed the Climate Leadership Plan. The CLT acknowledged that its recommendations were not comprehensive and focused much of its limited time on developing effective and fair carbon pricing recommendations. Consequently, Metro Vancouver’s detailed list of recommendations covers a wider breath of policies necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate. IMPORTANT GAPS IN THE CLT RECOMMENDATIONS As a consequence of its limited time and its focus on carbon pricing, there are some gaps in the CLT recommendations which would be important to address in Metro Vancouver. The following two gaps are of particular importance to Metro Vancouver:

1) Inclusion of evidence-based findings on the role of urban form decisions in long-term carbon neutrality, healthy communities, resiliency, and quality of life

A key Metro 2040 strategy is to “Encourage land use and transportation infrastructure that reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality”. Part of the successful implementation of this strategy are actions by the Provincial government, as stated in Metro 2040: That the federal government and the province and their agencies establish further legislative and fiscal actions to help the public and private sectors to maximize reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality, such as:

b) in the transportation sector, • enable the implementation of regional transportation demand management measures

such as transportation user-based pricing • increase funding for sustainable transportation infrastructure • continue to advance stringent standards for onroad vehicle emissions and fuel carbon

content

The Climate Leadership Team acknowledged that integrated land-use and transportation policy was an area that would be strengthened by contributions from other stakeholders and the public. Metro Vancouver recommended that the Province include CLP policies that support the creation of, and investment in: compact, walkable, transit oriented communities including sustainable funding for transit; active transportation infrastructure investments; and smart growth planning. 2) Set incremental targets and policies outlining the market transformation pathway(s) to

net zero buildings

Strengthening the energy efficiency and emissions performance of buildings through the Provincial building code policy also aligns with actions in Metro 2040 and the Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Management Plan including:



Page 3 of 5

Metro 2040: That the federal government and the province and their agencies establish further legislative and fiscal actions to help the public and private sectors to maximize reductions in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality, such as: a) in the building sector,

• accelerate the modernization of the BC Building Code • increase incentives for residential and commercial building retrofits • support, where feasible and appropriate, energy recovery, renewable energy generation and

district energy systems and related transmission needs

Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan: Provincial Government to continue setting more stringent energy and greenhouse gas performance standards for new and existing buildings, developing standards for on-site renewable energy systems through the B.C. Building Code, and promoting best practices in building energy performance.

The CLT recommendations for the buildings sector are narrowly focused on specific requirements for equipment and buildings whereas other jurisdictions leading in reducing emissions from buildings have moved towards setting incremental short-term and long-term targets and predictable stretch building codes to achieve net zero buildings which use far less energy and produce minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This approach better stimulates market innovation and transformation. Other jurisdictions including European Union, California and Washington have already mapped a voluntary and regulatory path to net zero buildings. Metro Vancouver recommended that the Province include CLP policies that set out a pathway to net zero buildings.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE CONSULTATION PROCESS Metro Vancouver staff will communicate three critical inadequacies in the consultation process to the Province:

1) The lack of opportunity to review a draft Climate Leadership Plan before the final version is released;

2) A consultation period that was too short to allow for coordinated response from local governments; and

3) The absence of an integrated land-use and transportation working group. As outlined in the March staff report, the Province has changed the consultation process and the revised process will not provide an opportunity for stakeholders and the public to review a draft plan before it is finalized. The staff letter highlights that the lack of opportunity to review a draft plan has made it difficult for local governments to evaluate which CLP policies are being given the most serious consideration by the Province for the final plan, and how well those policies will achieve Provincial and local targets and support local government climate priorities. In addition, municipal staff requested an extension of the consultation period from the Province to allow for a more coordinated response among local governments. Finally, as noted earlier, both municipal and Metro Vancouver staff recognized the need to strengthen policies that support the creation of, and investment in: compact, walkable, transit oriented communities including sustainable funding for transit, active transportation infrastructure investments and smart growth planning. Metro Vancouver recommended the creation of province-



Page 4 of 5 led, regional working groups on integrated land use and transportation planning to inform the final CLP and the implementation process. These could be modeled on the Energy Efficiency Working Group set up to inform the implementation of the Building Act. ALTERNATIVES 1. That the GVRD Board write to the Minister of Environment conveying its support for the Metro

Vancouver Phase II staff submission on the Provincial Climate Leadership Plan. 2. That the GVRD Board receive this report for information and take no further action at this time. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The implementation of the final CLP that will be adopted by the Province could have significant financial implications for local governments. A strong CLP that provides new funding or financial mechanisms for climate actions undertaken by local governments could enhance existing projects and programs and accelerate the implementation of planned actions outlined in existing plans. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION Metro Vancouver staff have prepared a submission as part of Phase II of the Climate Leadership Plan (CLP) consultation period. This submission outlines the following:


2) Important gaps in the Climate Leadership Team recommendations; and 3) Recommended changes to the consultation process.

Staff is recommending Alternative 1, that the GVRD Board send a letter to the Minister of Environment in support of the staff submission, and providing any additional recommendations as it sees fit. Attachment: Metro Vancouver Phase II Input to the Provincial Climate Leadership Plan, from Carol Mason, Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer to Susanna-Laaksonen-Craig, Head, Climate Action Secretariat



Page 5 of 5 References: Detailed Survey Results

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/files/2015/12/Final-Survey1-Results.pdf

Written Submissions http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/submissions/

Climate Leadership Team Members http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/policy-legislation-programs/climate-leadership-team

Climate Leadership Team Recommendations http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/files/2015/11/CLT-recommendations-to-government_Final.pdf

Consultation Guide: Building B.C.’s Climate Leadership Plan http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/files/2016/01/ConsultationGuide-ClimateLeadershipPlan.pdf

B.C. Climate Leadership Team Process and Recommendations http://www.pembina.org/reports/clt-recommendations-summary.pdf)

17853937


http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/files/2015/12/Final-Survey1-Results.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/submissions/

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/policy-legislation-programs/climate-leadership-team

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/policy-legislation-programs/climate-leadership-team

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/files/2015/11/CLT-recommendations-to-government_Final.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/files/2015/11/CLT-recommendations-to-government_Final.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/files/2016/01/ConsultationGuide-ClimateLeadershipPlan.pdf

http://engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership/files/2016/01/ConsultationGuide-ClimateLeadershipPlan.pdf

http://www.pembina.org/reports/clt-recommendations-summary.pdf

Office of the Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Tel. 604 432-6210 Fax 604 451-6614

File: CP-02-02-GHGR-03

Ms. Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, Head, Climate Action Secretariat Ministry of Environment PO Box 9486 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9W6 Dear Ms. Laaksonen-Craig: Re: Metro Vancouver Phase II Input to the Provincial Climate Leadership Plan A strong and ambitious Provincial Climate Leadership Plan (CLP) will be critical for Metro Vancouver to reach its greenhouse gas reduction targets and to support its communities in preparing for the impacts of climate change. It will also be important for the Province to quantify how the CLP policies will achieve the stated greenhouse gas reduction targets and describe how climate adaptation policies will directly and indirectly increase the resiliency of communities in the face of the impacts of climate change. As part of the Phase I Consultation period for the CLP, Metro Vancouver provided detailed policy feedback to the Province. In September 2015, the GVRD Board sent a letter conveying four foundational policies for climate action. This letter was followed by a Metro Vancouver staff letter which provided more detailed policy suggestions in support of the four foundational policies endorsed by the Board. Subsequently, the Board endorsed staff’s detailed policy suggestions in December 2015 and conveyed its recommendation to the B.C. Minister of Environment in a letter dated January 4, 2016. This letter constitutes the Metro Vancouver staff comments for the Phase II Consultation period that was initiated by the Province on January 25, 2016, and summarizes the following:


2) Important gaps in the CLT recommendations; and 3) Recommended changes to consultation process.

This letter presents the views of Metro Vancouver staff, which have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Metro Vancouver Board. It should be noted that because of time constraints and meeting schedules, the Metro Vancouver Climate Action Committee considered this staff letter at its April 6, 2016 meeting and has requested that the GVRD Board endorse the staff comments contained in this letter at its April 29, 2016 meeting. If the Board endorses or amends staff comments, they will be resubmitted to the Province at that time.

5.2 Attachment

17801243


Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, Head, Climate Action Secretariat, Ministry of Environment Metro Vancouver Phase II Input to the Provincial Climate Leadership Plan

Page 2 of 6

ALIGNMENT OF SUBMISSIONS WITH METRO VANCOUVER’S PHASE I RECOMMENDATIONS In reviewing the survey results and the written submissions from Phase I, there is strong alignment between the public feedback, the Climate Leadership Team recommendations, and Metro Vancouver’s submissions. A detailed table comparing feedback has been attached to this letter. In Phase I, the Metro Vancouver Board communicated four foundational policies necessary to reach provincial and local greenhouse gas reduction targets:

1. Widespread adoption of low/zero carbon vehicles; 2. Transition to net-zero-carbon new buildings and near net zero carbon existing

buildings; 3. Support for local government actions to reduce and shorten vehicular trips and increase

trips by walking, cycling, and transit; and 4. Carbon pricing to create a market signal to stimulate adoption of low carbon

technologies and practices. Reflecting on Metro Vancouver’s detailed Phase I policy recommendations, Metro Vancouver recommends a fifth foundational policy critical to reaching provincial climate adaptation goals:

5. Tools and resources that can assist local governments to adapt to current and future climate change.

Listed below are more detailed comments on how the public feedback and the CLT recommendations align with each of the five foundational policies and Metro Vancouver’s detailed policy recommendations:

• Low/Zero Carbon Vehicles The public survey and a number of written submissions by stakeholders emphasize the importance of supporting the expansion of low and zero carbon vehicles. Accordingly, the CLT recommends a zero emission vehicle mandate and increased support to motivate the adoption of low and zero carbon vehicles in the market. Metro Vancouver made similar recommendations, particularly pointing to the need to set mandatory targets and requirements for zero emission vehicles.

• Low Carbon Buildings The public feedback reflects broad, general support for greener buildings. Likewise, the CLT made recommendations to implement standards for high efficiency equipment, create financing mechanisms for energy retrofits, and demonstrate green building leadership when constructing new public buildings. Metro Vancouver recommended establishing policies that outline a clear pathway to net zero buildings and using tools and data such as home energy labelling, energy benchmarking, and incentives to support this market transformation.

17801243



Page 3 of 6

• Urban Form that Supports Walking, Cycling, and Transit Both the public survey and many of the written submissions reflect that the public recognizes the importance of expanding walking, cycling, and transit in reducing greenhouse gases. In broad terms the CLT supported increased use of public transit and other mobility options that reduce GHG emissions. However, the CLT did not provide detailed recommendations on how CLP policies could support local governments in making investments in walking, cycling, and transit infrastructure and adopting integrated land-use and transportation policies.

• Carbon Pricing The public feedback supports carbon pricing and gives a strong sense that the associated revenues should be invested back into public and private climate actions. The CLT spent the majority of its time and effort coming to an agreement on an effective and fair carbon pricing scheme. It supported an increase in the carbon tax and broadening of the tax to cover all emissions sectors. It also supported using the incremental revenue to lower the PST, eliminate PST on electricity, and to fund technology and innovation and local government projects. Similar to the CLT, Metro Vancouver recommended an incremental increase in the carbon tax and the use of that increase to fund local government projects. Also, Metro Vancouver recognized the importance of reducing impacts of increased carbon tax on vulnerable populations and addressing other unintended consequences.

• Climate Adaptation The public submissions focused less on climate adaptation than on reducing greenhouse gases. However, there was strong support for local food production, which is an important aspect of increasing local climate resilience and accordingly Metro Vancouver’s adaptation recommendations also included increasing support for local food production. The CLT recommendations regarding climate adaption focused largely on specific resources and tools to support planning and investment in climate adaptation such as hazard mapping, monitoring of climate impacts, and establishment of a policy framework to address climate impacts in communities. Metro Vancouver submitted an extensive list of policy recommendations to support both planning and actions related to climate adaptation. Similar to the CLT, hazard mapping was identified as a need, but Metro Vancouver also included recommendations for specific research on, and investment in infrastructure including urban green infrastructure (e.g. green belts, street trees, etc.), agricultural drainage systems, and climate-ready road infrastructure.

IMPORTANT GAPS IN THE CLT RECOMMENDATIONS The Climate Leadership Team has acknowledged that it spent most of its effort on coming to agreement on an effective and fair carbon pricing scheme that would support an economy-wide shift to low carbon technologies and practices. The CLT recommendations are an interlinked package of high impact policies, but should not be considered the definitive comprehensive policy set that is necessary to meet the existing or proposed greenhouse gas reduction targets. Nor

17801243



Page 4 of 6

should the CLT’s adaptation recommendations be considered robust enough to ensure communities have the support required to prepare for the full spectrum of climate change impacts. Metro Vancouver suggests that the following key policies should be included or strengthened in a draft plan:

• Inclusion of evidence-based findings on the role of decisions related to urban form in long-term carbon neutrality, healthy communities, resiliency, and quality of life In a communication following the release of their recommendations, CLT members recognized the limited attention that they gave to transit, active transportation and land-use policies as important tools for reducing transportation-related fossil fuel use. As such, they acknowledged that these policies should be given further consideration in the final plan. As outlined in Metro 2040 and the Mayors Regional Transportation Plan, investments in expanding transit, walking, and cycling and the supporting land-use and urban design policies are key regional priorities. The CLP needs to place a stronger emphasis on enabling policies that further support and enable the creation of, and investment in: compact, walkable, transit oriented communities including sustainable funding for transit, active transportation infrastructure investments and smart growth planning.

• Set incremental targets and policies outlining the market transformation pathway(s) to

net zero buildings Over the past few years, there has been an increased understanding and acknowledgement that voluntary and regulatory requirements for high performance buildings, including net zero buildings, are an important and achievable strategy to reaching GHG reduction targets. Other jurisdictions have already mapped a voluntary and regulatory pathways to net zero buildings including European Union, California and Washington. The CLT recommendations for the buildings sector focus on specific requirements whereas setting incremental short-term and long-terms targets and predictable stretch building codes to net zero buildings can stimulate the market innovation and transformation.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE CONSULTATION PROCESS In response to CLP Phase II consultation that was initiated on January 25, 2016, Metro Vancouver has gathered feedback from municipal staff, through several municipal advisory committees including the Regional Engineers Advisory Committee (REAC) and the Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC). In addition, Metro Vancouver and municipal staff have participated in a number of stakeholder consultation sessions held by the Province including workshops organized by the Provincial Office of Housing and Construction Standards and webinars organized by the Ministry of Community, Sport, and Cultural Development. Several Metro Vancouver municipalities are also members of the Energy Efficiency Working Group for Part 3 Buildings. Although this working group’s mandate is “to prepare recommendations for the energy efficiency of buildings that are actionable by local governments and the Province when

17801243



Page 5 of 6

the Building Act comes into force”, the working group’s recommendations will have significant influence and implications for the buildings policies in the CLP. Despite these opportunities there are three critical inadequacies to the consultation process: 1) The lack of opportunity to review a draft CLP before the final version is released; 2) a consultation period that was too short to allow for coordinated response from local governments; 3) absence of an integrated land-use and transportation working group.

• Lack of the Draft CLP and Extension of Consultation At the outset of the Phase I Consultation period, the Province indicated that a draft CLP would be released in late 2015 with a final document to follow in spring 2016. Metro Vancouver and other local governments expected to have an opportunity to participate in consultation on these versions of the Plan. On January 26, 2016, however, the Province released a high level Consultation Guide in place of a draft plan. The Consultation Guide summarizes broad directions from the first Discussion Guide, the feedback from the public, and the recommendations from the CLT, but does not provide detailed policies that would constitute an effective and meaningful plan. According to the revised consultation process that has been outlined by the Province, there will not be an opportunity to review and comment on a detailed draft plan. Instead, the Province has indicated that the Phase II Consultation will be the last consultation opportunity before the release of the final plan. In the absence of a detailed draft plan, it is difficult for local governments to evaluate which CLP policies are being given the most serious consideration by the Province and how well those policies will achieve Provincial and local targets and support local climate priorities. Although the Province did allow the minimum consultation period (60 days) requested by Metro Vancouver in the Phase I consultation, feedback from municipalities (particularly the Regional Planning Advisory Committee) is that an extension would be needed to develop a more coordinated response. In conjunction with an opportunity to review a draft CLP Metro Vancouver requests a longer consultation period to facilitate more detailed input from stakeholders.

• Creation of an Integrated Land-Use and Transportation Working Group

Finally, as noted earlier integrated land-use and transportation policies and investments are fundamental climate action policies. In order to advance Provincial level support for local government efforts on integrated land-use and transportation, Metro Vancouver requests the creation of province-led, regional working groups on integrated land use and transportation planning to inform the final CLP and the implementation process.

17801243



Page 6 of 6

Metro Vancouver appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the CLP during this consultation period and hopes the Province will give strong consideration to the recommendations above. If you have any questions or would like to further discuss our recommendations feel free to contact me. Yours truly, Carol Mason Commissioner/ Chief Administrative Officer CM/RQ/je

cc: Meggin Messenger, Executive Director, Intergovernmental Relations and Planning, MCSCD Jessica Brooks, Executive Director, Transportation Governance and Planning, MCSCD Jennifer Hill, Manager, Intergovernmental Initiatives, MCSCD Ben Finkelstein, Manager, Communities and Built Environment, MoE

Attachment: Comparison of Climate Leadership Plan Phase I Submissions: Metro Vancouver, Public

Feedback, and Climate Leadership Team Recommendations (17850913)

17801243


Attachment

Comparison of Climate Leadership Plan Phase I Submissions:

Metro Vancouver, Public Feedback, and Climate Leadership Team Recommendations

Metro Vancouver Foundational Policy Areas

Public Feedback Climate Leadership Team Recommendations

Metro Vancouver Detailed Feedback

Widespread adoption of low/zero carbon vehicles.

• Expanded regulations and incentives to encourage use of cleaner vehicles and fuels

• More clean, coordinated transportation such as public transit and shared travel

• Establish Zero Emission Vehicle targets for the sale of new light duty vehicles for 2020, 2025 and 2030 (#19a)

• Increase the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to 20 percent by 2030 (#19b)

• Broaden the LCFS coverage to include all vehicle fuel use with the exception of aviation fuel (#19c)

• Support increased commercial transport efficiency (size of vehicles) and natural gas/propane conversions (#19d)

• Establish revenue neutral PST for all vehicles based on grams of CO2 per km (#19e)

• Zero Emissions Vehicle requirement • Creation of a BC Hydro rate category for

vehicle charging • Funding for Clean Energy Vehicles (CEV)

program • Require access to electric charging in

residential and commercial buildings • Increase HOV lanes on provincial roads • Align the provincial Vehicle Emissions

Standards with other progressive jurisdictions • Modern regulatory environment for app-

based rideshare • Accelerate market penetration of zero

emission and near-zero emission vans, tour buses, and trucks

• Update the provincial Low Carbon Fuel Standard

Transition to net-zero-carbon new buildings and near net zero carbon existing buildings.

• Regulations and incentives for greener buildings

• Implement standards that support high-efficiency building equipment and appliances (#20d)

• Require new public sector buildings to use more materials that sequester carbon and meet most of its annual energy needs by on-site renewable energy starting in 2016 (#20a)

• Require new buildings to use more materials that sequester carbon and meet most of their annual

• Set incremental targets outlining the market transformation pathway(s) to net zero buildings

• Mandate home energy labelling • Enabling legislation for municipalities to

require mandatory building energy benchmarking

• Incentives for renewable energy retrofits • Improve compliance with the energy

provisions in the building code • Build new affordable net zero rental and

social housing

17850913


Attachment






energy needs by on-site renewable energy, through the building code (#20b)

• Encourage retrofits that reduce GHG emissions in existing buildings through programs (e.g. on-bill financing) (#20c)

Support for local government actions to reduce and shorten vehicular trips and increase trips by walking, cycling, and transit.

• Less travel and energy use to be a priority in community planning

• More clean, coordinated transportation such as public transit and shared travel

• Support increased use of public transit and other mobility options that reduce GHG emissions (#23)

• Sustainable funding for transit, active transportation infrastructure investments and smart growth planning

• Better VKT data to support planning • Enable user-pricing options (e.g. mobility

pricing, distance based insurance) • Review of Provincial tolling policy

Carbon pricing to create a market signal to stimulate adoption of low carbon technologies and practices.

• Expanding the use of carbon pricing to stimulate decisions that reduce emissions

• Using regulations and incentives to encourage considering the cost of climate risks in important decisions

• Improving the affordability of solutions for consumers and businesses to address climate change

• Increase the carbon tax in 2018 by $10/yr, maintain certain current tax reductions, and target tax credits and other mechanisms to emissions-intensive, trade exposed sectors and vulnerable groups (#5)

• Expand carbon tax coverage to all GHG emission sources in B.C. after 5 years (#6)

• Use incremental tax revenue for technology and innovation and local government projects resulting in reductions (#7b and #7c)

• Review integration of carbon tax with a cap and trade framework

• Province commits to ongoing incremental increases to carbon tax.

• Consider extending the carbon tax to excluded industrial process emissions or implement cap and trade

• Return the incremental revenues of future new carbon tax increases to local governments

• Consider the most effective use of carbon tax revenues in support of climate action and mitigation of any negative impacts of the carbon tax

17850913


Attachment






for the B.C. context if majority of provinces opt for carbon pricing via emissions trading (#29)

• Work with federal, provincial and other North American governments to achieve parity with B.C’s climate policies (#30)

• Lower PST and eliminate PST on electricity, supported by incremental carbon tax (#4 and #7a)

Tools and resources that can assist local governments adapt to climate change that is already locked.

• Support for local food production and low carbon businesses

• Using regulations and incentives to encourage considering the cost of climate risks in important decisions

• Amend the Environmental Assessment Act to include the social cost of carbon (#11)

• Update forest and agriculture policy, regulation and protected areas strategies to account for climate change impacts (#16)

• Update by 2020 hazard maps for all climate related hazards (#24a)

• Invest in sufficient monitoring systems to ensure the change in climate can be managed effectively (#24b)

• Develop a policy framework to guide government's management of the risks associated with a changing climate (#24c)

• Use First Nations traditional knowledge when appropriate as part of hazard mapping information (#25a)

• Program for increasing the resiliency of buildings and other facilities

• Research approaches and technologies for green infrastructure in urban areas

• Building code regulations and/or innovative funding to incentivize private property adaptation

• Up-to-date, downscaled climate projections for local areas and other related tools

• Tools for local governments to undertake community risk assessments

• Guidelines for undertaking a risk assessment • Decision support tools for developing

adaptation policy • Adaptation/resilience strategies that address

specific risks • Up-to-date natural hazard and risk mapping • Guidance around flood construction levels • Funding mechanisms for building flood

protection infrastructure

17850913


Attachment






• Resource the research of climate change impacts on the inherent and treaty rights of indigenous people (#25b)

• Climate risk assessment for provincial transportation infrastructure

• Design road infrastructure considering the potential impact of increased flooding

• Adopt a holistic decision-making process that integrates health outcome considerations

• Research on crop diversification and soil management

• Capital funding for drainage and irrigation infrastructure within the ALR

• Maintain the Environment Farm Program • Expand scope of the “Buy Local” program and

enable local food procurement policies • Research and provide incentives for

commercial/industrial gray water reuse • Study the opportunities and risks of the use of

non-potable water for agricultural uses.* • Fund incentives, initiatives, and tools that

reduce the amount of food waste

* Note this recommendation has been modified based on feedback from Climate Action Committee since the original submission

17850913


To: Climate Action Committee

From: Derek Jennejohn, Lead Senior EngineerPlanning, Policy and Environment Department

Date: March 15, 2016 Meeting Date: April 6, 2016

Subject: New Canadian Air Quality Management System and Implications for Metro Vancouver

RECOMMENDATION That the Climate Action Committee receive for information the report dated March 15, 2016, titled “New Canadian Air Quality Management System and Implications for Metro Vancouver”.

PURPOSE This report informs the Climate Action Committee of implementation of the new national Air Quality Management System and its implications for air quality management in Metro Vancouver.

BACKGROUND In May 2015, the GVRD Board adopted a new, interim ambient air quality objective for sulphur dioxide, recognizing that the previous objective in Metro Vancouver was outdated, and in anticipation of new ambient air quality standards being developed by the Federal Government for both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.

This report provides information to the Climate Action Committee on the overall initiative being developed by the Federal Government to develop a new national Air Quality Management System - including ambient air quality standards, industrial emission requirements and air zone management approaches – and the implications for Metro Vancouver.

NEW AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM In October 2012, the Canada-wide Air Quality Management System (AQMS) came into effect. The AQMS, agreed to by provincial ministers of environment across Canada, is a comprehensive approach for reducing air pollution in Canada and is the product of collaboration by the federal, provincial and territorial governments and stakeholders. The AQMS comprises a number of components, shown in the diagram.

5.3


New Canadian Air Quality Management System and Implications for Metro Vancouver Climate Action Committee Meeting Date: April 6, 2016

Page 2 of 6

Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are the driver for air quality management across the country. Standards have been developed for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone, and standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) are in development. Base-level Industrial Emissions Requirements (BLIERs) are intended to ensure that all significant industrial sources in Canada meet a consistent base-level of performance. BLIERs are emissions requirements proposed for new and existing major industrial sectors and some equipment types, and are based on what leading jurisdictions inside or outside Canada are requiring of industry, adjusted for Canadian circumstances. BLIERs are focused on emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter (PM). The BLIERs are being brought in through federal Multi-Sector Air Pollutants Regulations, which currently apply to:

• NOx emissions from boilers and heaters that burn gaseous fossil fuels in regulated facilities; • NOx emissions from stationary spark-ignition engines that burn gaseous fuels in regulated

facilities; and • NOx and SO2 emissions from cement kilns at cement manufacturing facilities.

Air Zones and Airsheds are the geographic areas in which air quality management efforts occur. Air zones allow a place-based approach to manage local air quality, with the goal of improving air quality and keeping clean areas clean. Provinces and territories delineate and manage air zones within their boundaries, guided by an Air Zone Management Framework. Air zones are areas that typically exhibit similar air quality characteristics, issues and trends, and are the basis for monitoring, reporting and taking action under the AQMS. Beginning in 2015, jurisdictions have been preparing annual air zone reports that describe their status of achievement of the CAAQS, assignment of management levels to guide the level of response, and actions underway or planned to improve air quality. Airsheds are broader geographic areas that encompass a number of air zones. Six airsheds covering all of Canada have been established to coordinate efforts to reduce transboundary air pollution and report on regional air quality. The AQMS also includes enhanced coordination where air pollution crosses jurisdictional borders, and increased collaboration to reduce transportation emissions. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CANADIAN AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND AIR ZONE MANAGEMENT IN METRO VANCOUVER Seven air zones have been established in BC, as shown in the figure. Metro Vancouver is part of the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) Air Zone, together with the Fraser Valley Regional District. The LFV Air Zone was established by the province with input from Metro Vancouver and the FVRD. The province reports annually on achievement of the PM2.5 and ozone CAAQS in BC’s seven air zones, and the actions being taken to reduce air emissions. Metro Vancouver and FVRD staff contribute to the sections of the provincial report pertaining to the Lower Fraser Valley air zone. The first report for the LFV Air Zone was released in 2015 for the period 2011-2013, and reported the following:



Page 3 of 6

• Ground-level ozone concentrations ranged from 38-54 ppb (parts per billion), and were below the CAAQS of 63 ppb; and

• PM2.5 concentrations ranged from 9-14 µg/m3 (24-hour concentration) and 3.8-5.6 µg/m3 (annual concentration), and were below the respective CAAQS of 28 and 10 µg/m3.

The Air Zone Management Framework assigns an air zone to one of four defined colour-coded management levels (i.e. red, orange, yellow and green), with recommended actions associated with each level. On this basis, the Lower Fraser Valley Air Zone has been assigned a management level of “yellow” for both ozone and PM2.5, indicating that air quality actions should focus on preventing further deterioration of both ground-level ozone and PM2.5. The “yellow” level assigned to the LFV Air Zone is based on the highest concentrations within the air zone. For ozone, most monitoring stations were assigned a “green” level (i.e. actions for keeping clean areas clean), while ozone levels at Burnaby Mountain, Chilliwack and Hope were coded as "yellow”. For PM2.5, all stations in the LFV Air Zone were assigned a “yellow” level, with the exception of Horseshoe Bay, which was “green”. In 2016, it is expected that the first national State of the Air Report will be released, detailing the air quality levels and actions being taken for PM2.5 and ozone in air zones and airsheds across the country. Development of CAAQS for Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrogen Dioxide Following implementation of the CAAQS for PM2.5 and ozone, the development of national standards for sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is also underway. For SO2, Metro Vancouver’s previous objective was based on outdated health science from the 1970s, and new evidence suggested that they were not adequately protective of public health and the environment. This evidence prompted several agencies, including the World Health Organization (WHO), Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), and the B.C. Ministry of Environment to review their SO2 standards. In Canada, adoption of the new SO2 CAAQS is tentatively scheduled for later in 2016, with the standards taking effect by 2020, followed by more stringent standards in 2025. To bridge the gap to 2020, the BC Ministry of Environment in October 2014 adopted an interim provincial 1-hour SO2 objective, applicable to new and significantly modified sources. The Ministry plans to revisit the interim objective after the new CAAQS for SO2 are adopted. Similarly, the GVRD Board on May 15, 2015 adopted an interim 1-hour objective of 75 ppb for SO2 for the region, which is more protective than Metro Vancouver’s previous 1-hour objective of 174 ppb. Staff will report back to the Committee when the CAAQS for SO2 are finalized.



Page 4 of 6

Development of the NO2 CAAQS is also underway, and it is anticipated that the process will continue through 2016, with NO2 CAAQS intended to be ready for recommendation to Provincial ministers of the environment by 2017. The process is being coordinated by the Air Management Committee (AMC) of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Specific concentration values for NO2 CAAQS will be recommended to the AMC by a multi-stakeholder working group, co-chaired by Health Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, with representatives from non-governmental and aboriginal organizations, industry, and multiple orders of government. The working group will select the NO2 CAAQS from ranges of concentrations that are based on the impacts of NO2 on health and the environment. The concentration ranges under consideration are quite stringent, with the upper end based on NO2 levels observed in current monitoring across Canada, while the lower end is based on a population improvement approach. This approach uses air monitoring data and population distribution information to identify a target that represents an incremental improvement from current conditions, and reduces risk to the overall population. The working group met face-to-face for the first time February 29, 2016 to March 1, 2016 in Toronto, and meets again in April and June, with preliminary recommendations possibly ready at that time. In Metro Vancouver, key contributors to emissions of NO2 are exhausts from motor vehicles, non-road engines, marine vessels, as well as heating and process emissions from buildings and industry. In light of this, Metro Vancouver’s air quality monitoring station in downtown Vancouver has some of the highest annual NO2 concentrations in the region due in part to proximity of the station to road traffic. Concentrations at this station are near the upper end of the range being considered, and consequently even a value selected near the upper end of the range may be difficult to achieve, while a value selected near the lower end of the range may not be achieved for several years if current trends continue. Additionally, increased interest in monitoring in the near-road environment will challenge the achievability of NO2 CAAQS, as there is typically higher NO2 in these near-road areas. With delegated authority for air quality management in the region, Metro Vancouver can adopt objectives that are equivalent or more stringent than the provincial objectives or federal standards. While the potential for more stringent standards to be put in place in Metro Vancouver than in the rest of the province can raise concerns for business and industry operating in the region, in densely populated areas such as Metro Vancouver it is prudent to adopt more protective objectives since more people are at risk. Metro Vancouver uses its objectives, such as the newly adopted interim objective for SO2, to manage short-term episodes and issue public advisories. Actions to Protect Air Quality In Air Zones where the CAAQS are being approached or exceeded, additional work that builds upon existing local air quality management plans may be required to ensure that good air quality is achieved. While the CAAQS are non-statutory limits and do not come with legal requirements (unless stipulated directly in a regulation or authorization), they are intended for use in assessing air quality and guiding air management decisions. As noted earlier, the 2015 LFV Air Zone report assigns a management level of “yellow” for ozone and PM2.5 (i.e. indicating that actions to protect air quality should focus on preventing further deterioration of both ground-level ozone and PM2.5). A number of actions are underway or in effect:



Page 5 of 6

• Local air management plans are in place, including Metro Vancouver’s Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan, and the FVRD Air Quality Management Plan (adopted in 1998, currently under revision);

• Air quality agencies in the LFV collaboratively developed a Regional Ground Level Ozone Strategy in 2014;

• The AirCare program to test light-duty vehicle emissions in the LFV was established in 1992. The program ended on December 31, 2014, and the focus has shifted to ensuring that no backsliding occurs in the emission reduction benefits achieved by the AirCare program, and to reducing emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines;

• The Lower Fraser Valley Air Quality Monitoring Network – a network of 29 monitoring stations that collect air quality and meteorological data – supports planning and regulatory efforts and assessment of compliance with air quality standards and objectives, and performance with respect to achievement of air quality management goals; and

• A number of other multi-agency committees and groups that exist both within the LFV, and with air quality agencies adjacent to Metro Vancouver, to collaborate on air quality initiatives.

ALTERNATIVES This is an information report. No alternatives are presented. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications directly associated with this information report. Metro Vancouver resources to monitor development of the Air Quality Management System and Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards are included in the 2016 budget. SUMMARY / CONCLUSION The new Air Quality Management System is being implemented across Canada to better protect human health and the environment. It does this through: new Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS); establishment of air zones and a management framework that supports actions to improve air quality and keep clean areas clean; Base-Level Industrial Emission Requirements (BLIERS) for major industries to set a consistent level of performance across Canada; and other measures like enhanced coordination between jurisdictions and increased collaboration on actions to reduce transportation emissions. Under the federal system, Metro Vancouver is part of the Lower Fraser Valley (LFV) Air Zone, together with the Fraser Valley Regional District. The first report for the LFV Air Zone, released in 2015 for the period 2011-2013, assigned a management level of “yellow” for ozone and PM2.5, indicating that actions to protect air quality should focus on preventing further deterioration of both ground-level ozone and PM2.5, which are the first two contaminants for which CAAQS have been established. CAAQS for sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are also under development. Adoption of SO2 CAAQS is tentatively scheduled for later in 2016, to go into effect by 2020, while NO2 CAAQS are intended to be ready for recommendation by 2017. To bridge the gap, Metro Vancouver has adopted an interim objective for SO2 which is more protective than the previously existing objective. The NO2 CAAQS concentration ranges under consideration are relatively stringent, and may be difficult to achieve, particularly given the proximity of some monitoring stations to traffic.



Page 6 of 6

The Metro Vancouver Integrated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management Plan is a key component of the management framework necessary to address these concerns, and a number of actions are in place or underway to monitor and protect air quality and maintain focus on preventing further deterioration and keep clean areas clean. 17743115


5.4

To: Climate Action Committee From: Roger Quan, Director, Air Quality and Climate Change Planning, Policy and Environment Department Date: March 29, 2016 Meeting Date: April 6, 2016 Subject: Manager’s Report RECOMMENDATION That the Climate Action Committee receive for information the report dated March 29, 2016, titled “Manager’s Report”. Climate Action Committee 2016 Work Plan Attachment 1 to this report sets out the Committee’s Workplan for 2016. The status of work program elements is indicated as pending, in progress, or complete. The listing is updated as needed to include new issues that arise, items requested by the Committee, and changes to the schedule. Health Canada Report on Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust In March 2016, Health Canada released the report “Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust”, a comprehensive review and analysis of the potential adverse health effects associated with diesel fuel use in Canada. The report concluded that diesel exhaust emissions result in significant health risks and societal costs for Canadians, causing an estimated 710 premature deaths in 2015, and $5.5 billion in health effects. An executive summary of the report is provided as Attachment 2 to this Manager’s Report, and the full report is accessible at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/sc-hc/H129-60-2016-eng.pdf The report focussed on exhaust emissions from on-road and non-road diesel vehicles and engines (excluding rail and marine applications), and suggested that on-road and non-road emissions each contributed approximately equally to health impacts. The estimated health effects are attributable to exposure to ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ground-level ozone (O3), associated with diesel exhaust. Modelling results further showed that on-road diesel emissions contribute significantly to air pollutant concentrations in urban and economically active areas and along major transportation routes. Non-road diesel emissions, which can be more widely distributed than on-road diesel emissions, affect air quality in both rural and urban areas. The combination of on-road and non-road emissions leads to greater air quality impacts in the largest Canadian urban centres, such as Metro Vancouver, as well as Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montréal. Diesel emissions in Canada have been reduced by stringent emission and fuel regulations, with significant reductions achieved through new technology engines and cleaner fuels. However, older


http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/sc-hc/H129-60-2016-eng.pdf

Manager’s Report Climate Action Committee Meeting Date: April 6, 2016

Page 2 of 5 technology engines remain a significant component of the in-use fleet. The report concluded that efforts to further reduce emissions of diesel exhaust in Canada should continue, particularly in areas with large populations. In Metro Vancouver, the Non-Road Diesel Engine Bylaw targets emission reductions from older, in-use non-road diesel engines, and staff have been working with regional partners and stakeholders to develop options for reducing emissions from on-road diesel engines. The Climate Action Committee Work Plan for 2016 includes an item to develop new programs in partnership with other levels of government to address air quality and greenhouse gas emissions from on-road light- and heavy-duty vehicles. Health Canada Report on Human Health Risk Assessment for Coarse Particulate Matter In February 2016 the federal government published a risk assessment from Health Canada entitled "Human Health Risk Assessment for Coarse Particulate Matter". This new assessment draws upon research representing the state of knowledge about the potential health impacts of coarse particulate matter to conclude that cardiovascular and respiratory health effects are associated with short-term exposure, particularly for children and the elderly. An executive summary is provided as Attachment 3 to this report and the full assessment report is available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/sc-hc/H144-30-2016-eng.pdf Inhalable particulate matter comprises all particulate matter (airborne solid and liquid particles) that are less than 10 microns in diameter, where a micron or micrometre is a millionth of a metre. Inhalable particulate matter consists of both a fine fraction, PM2.5, which is particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter, and a coarse fraction which is particles less than 10 microns but larger than 2.5 microns. Coarse particulate matter is measured in the region as PM10, which is all particles less than 10 microns, meaning that PM10 is actually the sum of both the coarse and the fine fraction. PM10 is currently measured at 11 stations in the Lower Fraser Valley air quality monitoring network. Measurements of PM10 have also been made as part of specialized studies in recent years using portable instruments and Metro Vancouver’s mobile air monitoring unit (MAMU). Significant sources of PM10 in the region include road dust, construction and demolition dust, wood heating, industrial activities and wind erosion of agricultural land. While monitoring programs have shifted focus in recent years to assessment of PM2.5 and even ultrafine particulate matter, the Health Canada assessment confirms that PM10 contributes to health effects and it is prudent to continue to monitor this size fraction and use the data to support actions to protect human health and the environment. Update on Emotive Campaign Events The Emotive: The Electric Vehicle Experience campaign is entering its third year. Currently funded by Metro Vancouver and the Province of BC, and presented by a range of partners, this year’s summer event season kicked off at the Vancouver International Auto Show, held over the Easter long weekend at the Vancouver Convention Centre.


http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/sc-hc/H144-30-2016-eng.pdf


Page 3 of 5 Emotive was responsible for both the “Electric Avenue” display area and the electric vehicle test drive portion of the Auto Show. This year’s test drive was a success, with vehicles booked solid for the duration of the show. In total, Emotive ran 986 test drives, over 4 days, of 11 plug-in hybrid models and 8 different models of pure electric vehicles (EVs). The test drives were supported by over 30 volunteer electric vehicle ambassadors from the EV-owners community. The test drives represented a doubling from last year when 465 test drives were completed in four days. Emotive is poised to attend a number of events around Metro Vancouver this summer. Below are a few that have confirmed to date:

• Party for the Planet (Surrey, April 23) • Richmond Sockeye Run Charity Car Show (Richmond, June 12) • Electrafest (Vancouver, June 25) • Coquitlam Canada Day (Coquitlam, July 1) • TD Jazz Festival (Vancouver, July 2-3)

Attachment: 1. Climate Action Committee 2016 Work Plan 2. Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust: Summary 3. Human Health Risk Assessment for Coarse Particulate Matter: Executive Summary 17698540


Climate Action Committee 2016 Work Plan Report Date: March 29, 2016 Priorities

1st Quarter Status

Submit Written Argument and present Oral Summary Argument to National Energy Board for Trans Mountain Expansion Project

complete

Conduct workshop with Climate Action Committee to seek direction on development of an integrated regional climate action framework

in progress

Consider 5 year work program related to the development of air quality bylaws and regulations and provide direction to staff

complete

Report on consultation program initiated in 2015 regarding proposed amendments to GVRD Air Quality Management Bylaw No. 1082, 2008 and GVRD Air Quality Management Fees Bylaw No. 1083, 2008, and present proposed bylaw amendments to the Climate Action Committee for GVRD Board approval

complete

Advise BC Environmental Assessment Office of Metro Vancouver’s participation in working group related to George Massey Tunnel Replacement Project

complete

Initiate review and revision of Ecological Health Action Plan, including broad consultation process

pending

Complete Urban Forest Adaptation Guidelines complete

2nd Quarter

Review proposals made to the three Sustainability Innovation Funds and make recommendations to the Board on proposals to support in the 2016-2017 period.

in progress

Prepare fifth annual Caring for the Air report and expand outreach in progress

Report on the development of the next phase of the energy and greenhouse gas reduction program for small- and medium-sized businesses

pending

Launch website to assist electric vehicle owners living in strata buildings to access charging

pending

Review workplan and consultation process for Invasive Species project in progress

Initiate consultation on proposed amendments to Non-road Diesel Engine Emission Regulation

pending

Participate in environmental assessment processes as requested in progress

Review Metro Vancouver GrowGreen website for amateur gardeners (Sustainability Innovation Fund project initiated in 2015)

pending

Report on Water Conservation Research and 2016 Campaign (Sustainability Innovation Fund project initiated in 2015)

pending

5.4 Attachment 1



Page 5 of 5

3rd Quarter

Report on progress on implementation of corporate energy management program pending

Implement additional energy and greenhouse gas reduction offset projects that will achieve and maintain Metro Vancouver’s carbon neutral status

in progress

Present a draft policy on internal carbon pricing, to ensure greenhouse gas emissions are considered in Metro Vancouver business decisions

pending

Launch Home Energy Labelling campaign (Sustainability Innovation Fund project initiated in 2015)

in progress

Initiate consultation on proposed regulatory mechanisms to reduce discharge of odorous air contaminants from permitted sources

pending

Initiate consultation on proposed amendments to Automotive Refinishing Regulation

pending

Develop new programs in partnership with other levels of government to address air quality and greenhouse gas emissions from on-road light- and heavy-duty vehicles

pending

Report on the implementation of the Strata Energy Advisor pilot project (Sustainability Innovation Fund project initiated in 2015)

pending

Consider approach to greenhouse gas emissions reduction target as a component of Metro 2040, the regional growth strategy

pending

4th Quarter

Propose amendments to Automotive Refinishing Emission Regulation Bylaw, for Board adoption

pending

Adopt Integrated Regional Climate Action Strategy pending

Report on the results of the Smart Drive Challenge (Sustainability Innovation Fund project initiated in 2015)

pending

Participate in environmental assessment processes as requested pending

Consider proposed 2017 climate action, air quality, environmental planning and energy programs and budget

pending

Engage with external agencies on proposed regulatory mechanisms to reduce emissions from residential wood burning

pending

Report on Reducing Grease in Sewers – Behaviour Change Pilot Project (Sustainability Innovation Fund project initiated in 2015)

pending


Home (http://canada.ca/en/index.html) Health (/index-eng.php) Publications (/publications/index-eng.php) Healthy living (/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/index-eng.php)

Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust - Summary

✉ Order the full document (mailto:[email protected]?subject=Order%3A%20Human%20Health%20Risk%20Assessment%20for%20Diesel%20Exhaust)

Organization: Health Canada (/department-ministere/hc-sc-eng.php)

Date published: 2016-03-04

Page 1 of 7Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust - Summary

4/1/2016http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/exhaust-diesel-gaz-echap...

5.4 Attachment 2


Health Canada completed the Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust, a comprehensive review and analysis of the potential adverse health effects associated with diesel fuel use in Canada. The report focuses on diesel exhaust (DE) emissions from on-road and off-road vehicles (excluding rail and marine applications) and targets impacts resulting from general population exposures. The assessment includes a review of diesel fuels, engines and emissions, a review of exposure to DE, an evaluation of the health effects associated with DE exposure, as well as a quantitative analysis of the population health impacts associated with the contribution of DE to criteria air contaminant concentrations in Canada. This report does not address the health risks of diesel fuel itself, which is under review as part of the Chemicals Management Plan of the Government of Canada and will be reported elsewhere.

Internationally, the potential health effects of DE exposure have long been recognized, and great effort has resulted in substantial reductions in diesel emissions, including in Canada. A key accomplishment has been the introduction of stringent emission regulations for new diesel vehicles and engines, resulting in improved engine and emission control technologies in both the off-road and on-road diesel fleets. In addition, the quality of diesel fuel used in on-road, off-road, rail, marine and stationary engines has improved, particularly in terms of the sulphur content. Some jurisdictions have undertaken additional initiatives to mitigate in-use diesel engine emissions and human exposure to them, such as inspection and maintenance programs, retrofit and scrappage programs and idling restrictions. However, the Canadian in-use diesel fleet is still dominated by engines pre-dating the most recent emission standards.

Diesel-powered vehicles are pervasive on major roadways and in urban centres in Canada. It is reasonable to assume that most Canadians are regularly exposed to DE. Because of the variable and complex nature of DE and the fact that DE constituents are emitted by other pollution sources, it has been difficult to quantify general population exposure to DE. Several surrogates have been used to represent DE, all of which have had their limitations. The respirable fraction of elemental carbon is considered to be one of the better options used to date.

• Health Risks and Benefits Associated With the Use of 10% Ethanol(/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/ethanol/index-eng.php)

• Human Health Risk Assessment for Biodiesel Production, Distribution andUse in Canada (/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/biodiesel/index-eng.php)



Related Topics


This risk assessment considered the reviews and conclusions of the California Environmental Protection Agency (1998) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002) human health risk assessments for DE and provided detailed review of the health effects literature published since 2000. The available information supports the conclusion that DE emissions have direct effects on human health.

The newly published health studies along with supporting evidence from work published prior to 2000 provide sufficient evidence to conclude that DE is carcinogenic in humans and is specifically associated with the development of lung cancer. Although the risk estimates are generally small, the population health risks are considered to be significant given the ubiquitous presence of DE emissions in Canada. The evidence is also suggestive that DE may be implicated in the development of cancer of the bladder in humans, but further research is required to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn. A limited number of studies have investigated other cancers in association with DE exposure, but the evidence is inadequate to draw conclusions regarding causality. Overall, these conclusions are consistent with the categorization of DE as a human carcinogen (Group 1) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Regarding non-cancer health effects and the potential causal role of DE in their development, a number of conclusions are drawn from the existing literature. The evidence supports a causal relationship between acute exposure to DE at relatively high concentrations and effects on the respiratory system, including increases in airway resistance and respiratory inflammation. Under conditions of chronic exposure, DE exposure is likely to be causal in the development of respiratory effects. It was concluded that DE exposure is likely to be causal in the development of adverse cardiovascular outcomes following acute exposure and in the development of adverse immunological responses. The evidence reviewed is suggestive of a causal relationship between DE and 1) adverse cardiovascular outcomes following chronic exposure, 2) adverse reproductive and developmental effects and 3) central nervous system effects following acute exposure to DE. Currently, there is inadequate evidence to draw conclusions regarding the potential neurological impacts of chronic DE exposure.

Based on traditional risk assessment methodologies and with regard to general population exposures, a short-term exposure guidance value of 10 µg/m³ and a chronic exposure guidance value of 5 µg/m³ have been derived based on diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) to protect against adverse effects on the respiratory system. The available evidence indicates that respiratory effects occur at lower concentrations of DE than those associated with other non-cancer adverse effects, and so these guidance values are considered protective against the non-cancer health impacts of DE exposure. However, it is recognized that there have not been adequate large scale epidemiological studies of non-cancer effects associated with either short-term or chronic DE exposure to conclusively characterize the

1

2

3, 4


4/1/2016http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/exhaust-diesel-gaz-echap...Climate Action Committee -

exposure-response relationships. More research is needed to elucidate this and to evaluate the potential role of DE in the observed non-threshold population health effects of fine particulate matter (PM ).

In general, it has been shown that sensitive subpopulations, such as the elderly, children and asthmatics, can be at greater risk of adverse respiratory effects due to DE exposure. Exposure of the elderly and asthmatics to traffic-related DE has been shown to increase respiratory inflammation. Also, pulmonary function decrements have been demonstrated in asthmatics exposed to traffic-related DE. Furthermore, traffic-related DE exposure in children has been implicated in potential asthma development later in life. The guidance values for short-term and chronic DE exposure presented above account for the enhanced sensitivity of subgroups in the population.

Overall, it is concluded that DE is associated with significant population health impacts in Canada and efforts should continue to further reduce emissions of and human exposures to DE.

As part of this assessment, efforts were also made to quantify the population health impacts associated with the contribution of DE to criteria air contaminant concentrations in Canada. The analysis of population health impacts was conducted in a stepwise manner with the use of computer simulation tools to 1) estimate emissions from the Canadian diesel fleet, 2) estimate the impact of those emissions on ambient concentrations of criteria air contaminants across the country and 3) estimate population health impacts resulting from the incremental contribution of DE to air pollution levels. This was undertaken for calendar year 2015, and results were assessed on a national, provincial/territorial and regional basis. This analysis is complementary to the traditional risk assessment approach presented above.

The air quality scenarios modelled with A Unified Regional Air Quality Modelling System (AURAMS) and the Air Quality Benefits Assessment Tool (AQBAT) were selected in order to provide an indication of the potential air quality and health impacts associated with diesel fuel use in on-road and off-road applications in Canada. On-road and off-road diesel applications are responsible for substantial levels of pollutant emissions. Compared with other mobile sources, diesel vehicles and engines contribute significantly to nitrogen dioxide (NO ) and PM emissions, whereas gasoline mobile sources contribute the majority of carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. Diesel source emissions are notably important in large urban areas, such as Greater Vancouver, Toronto and Montréal, where a large fraction of the Canadian population resides. Diesel emissions are also important along major trucking routes and roadways connecting major cities (e.g. Windsor-Québec corridor), as well as in agricultural and mining areas (e.g. Alberta). The

2.5

2 2.5



characteristics of the mobile fleet and the dominating economic sectors in a particular region determine the influence of diesel emissions. The concentration of diesel emissions in specific geographic areas leads to distinct air quality impacts across Canada.

Diesel emissions are estimated to contribute significantly to ambient concentrations of NO , PM and ground level ozone (O ). The air quality modelling results show that on-road diesel emissions contribute significantly to air pollutant concentrations in urban and economically active areas and along major transportation routes. Off-road diesel emissions, which are more widely distributed than on-road diesel emissions, affect air quality in both rural and urban areas. The combination of on-road and off-road emissions leads to greater air quality impacts in the largest Canadian urban centres, notably Greater Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montréal. Off-road diesel emissions also have a relatively large impact in less developed areas characterized by few other sources of pollutant emissions (e.g. remote mining communities).

Based on the current health impact analysis, on-road and off-road diesel emissions result in significant and substantial population health impacts and societal costs in Canada via the contribution of DE to ambient concentrations of criteria air contaminants. The modelling undertaken estimates that on-road diesel emissions are associated with 320 premature mortalities for 2015 (valued at $2.3 billion), with 65% and 35% of the estimated mortalities attributable to ambient PM and NO , respectively. On-road and off-road diesel emissions are associated with 710 premature mortalities (valued at $5.1 billion), with 65%, 32% and 3% of the estimated mortalities being attributable to ambient PM , NO and O , respectively. Diesel emissions are also associated with significant numbers of acute respiratory symptom days, restricted activity days, asthma symptom days, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, child acute bronchitis episodes and adult chronic bronchitis cases across Canada. Results from the AQBAT simulations for the current assessment suggest that on-road and off-road emissions each contribute approximately equally to population health impacts. The results also indicate that both on-road and off-road diesel applications have significant health impacts in major Canadian urban centres. Diesel emissions have higher health impacts in the most populated provinces, such as British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, and in the most populated census divisions, which correspond to the Greater Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montréal areas. The greatest air quality impacts are also observed in those areas. Overall, it is concluded that efforts should continue to further reduce emissions of DE in Canada, particularly in areas with large populations.

To obtain an electronic copy of the Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust, please contact ✉ [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]).

2

2.5 3

2.5 2

2.5 2 3



California EPA (1998). Part B: Health risk assessment for diesel exhaust(http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/partb.pdf). Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.

1

US EPA (2002). Health assessment document for diesel engine exhaust (final 2002). EPA/600/8-90/057F. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

2

Benbrahim-Tallaa L; Baan RA; Grosse Y; Lauby-Secretan B; El Ghissassi F; Bouvard V; Guha N; Loomis D; Straif K; International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group (2012). Carcinogenicity of diesel-engine and gasoline-engine exhausts and some nitroarenes. Lancet Oncol 13(7): 663-664.

3

IARC (2013). Diesel and gasoline engine exhausts and some nitroarenes(http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol105/index.php). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 105. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

4

Date modified: 2016-03-04



17855226 Climate Action Committee -

Home (http://canada.ca/en/index.html) Health (/index-eng.php) Publications (/publications/index-eng.php) Healthy living (/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/index-eng.php)

Human Health Risk Assessment for Coarse Particulate Matter: Executive Summary

✉ Order a copy (mailto:[email protected]?subject=Human Health Risk Assessment for Coarse Particulate Matter)

Organization: Health Canada (/department-ministere/hc-sc-eng.php)

Date published: 2016-02-12

Page 1 of 5Human Health Risk Assessment for Coarse Particulate Matter: Executive Summary

4/1/2016http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/particulate-particules/ind...

5.4 Attachment 3


Health Canada has completed a detailed risk assessment entitled "Human Health Risk Assessment for Coarse Particulate Matter", a stand-alone piece focusing on the potential health impacts of coarse particulate matter (PM ). The state of knowledge on the health effects of coarse PM has and continues to advance and approximately 150 new primary scientific publications were evaluated.

The assessment critically evaluated relevant information essential to establishing the weight of evidence for the various health effects associated with exposure to ambient coarse PM, and for establishing whether population health impacts can be expected from current ambient exposures. The health effects of coarse PM have been investigated through a number of different types of studies, with the strongest evidence coming from the epidemiological literature. These studies have primarily evaluated the impact of coarse PM on respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes. The results of work with human volunteers (controlled human exposure studies) and with animals (toxicological studies) in controlled laboratory settings support the epidemiological results and help to better understand the mechanisms of coarse PM impacts on heart and lung health.

The next few paragraphs provide a brief summary of the key health impacts of coarse particles and causality conclusions reached in the assessment.

Acute Effects - MortalityThe health database supporting the relationship between coarse particles and mortality outcomes has grown over the past few years. There are fairly consistent positive associations between short-term exposure to ambient coarse PM and non-accidental, respiratory and cardiovascular mortality in the available epidemiological studies. However, the associations observed in these studies are sometimes not statistically significant, demonstrating only limited strength of association. Generally, the associations between coarse particles and mortality are similar in magnitude, but less precise, than those observed for fine particles, though this lack of precision is not unexpected given the larger exposure measurement error for the coarse fraction. There is also only limited support for coarse PM-related mortality in other lines of evidence; for example, respiratory morbidity is prominent in the toxicological and epidemiological studies, with little indication of effects that may be related to cardiovascular mortality, which comprises the bulk of non-accidental mortality. Uncertainty also remains about the potential for confounding by the fine PM fraction and/or gaseous pollutants. Overall, the epidemiology data are suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term exposure to the coarse PM fraction and mortality.

10-2.5


4/1/2016http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/particulate-particules/ind...Climate Action Committee -

Acute Effects - Morbidity

Respiratory EffectsFairly consistent coarse PM-related increases in hospital admissions and emergency room visits (ERVs) for respiratory conditions, most often for asthma in children, have been reported in epidemiological studies. These findings are mostly statistically significant, particularly for hospitalizations, and are supported by even more consistent significant increases in respiratory symptoms and asthma medication use in panel studies of asthmatic children. These findings have been robust across a number of study designs and model specifications, and also across different pollutant mixtures and health care systems. There is also fairly coherent evidence (across hospital admissions, ERVs, panel, controlled human exposure and animal toxicology studies) that asthma exacerbation is a critical effect of coarse PM exposure and, that children and the elderly are susceptible subgroups. Studies have provided experimental support for the epidemiological findings and for emerging plausible mechanisms of action/toxic moieties (e.g. endotoxins). The main proposed mechanisms for PM-induced health effects are inflammation-induced injury and oxidative stress, with the specific component(s) of particles responsible for the stimulation of various biological parameters being presently unknown (although biological matter, metal contaminants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzo(a)pyrene have all been implicated). Further, there is some indication of specificity of effect, with coarse PM being associated with effects in the upper respiratory tract and fine PM more with those in the lower respiratory tract, corresponding to their principal respiratory tract regions of deposition. However, important uncertainties remain concerning the possible role of co-pollutants in the observed associations. This is particularly important considering the relatively large measurement error and variation in composition of the coarse fraction. Overall, the epidemiology data and the limited results from controlled human exposure and toxicological studies are suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term exposure to the coarse PM fraction and respiratory effects.

Cardiovascular EffectsThere is little indication of coherence in the limited and sometimes inconsistent cardiovascular findings from available panel and controlled human exposure studies, and uncertainty remains with respect to the possible role of fine PM and gaseous pollutants in the associations observed in many epidemiology studies. However, the risk estimates for cardiovascular hospitalizations and mortality in relation to ambient coarse PM are generally positive, and there were significant and robust coarse PM-related increases in mortality from certain cardiovascular causes in two US multi-centre studies. Overall, the findings in these population-based epidemiology studies are suggestive of a causal relationship between



short-term exposure to the coarse PM fraction and cardiovascular effects, though investigations of cardiovascular endpoints in panel studies and in toxicological studies in animals and humans are too limited to shed much light on the weight of evidence.

Chronic Effects - Mortality and MorbidityIn contrast to the large number of studies of short-term variations in air pollutants associated with a range of mortality and morbidity endpoints, there have been relatively few studies that examined the respiratory and cardiovascular effects of long-term exposure to air pollutants. The associations of chronic exposure to ambient coarse particles with mortality and both respiratory and cardiovascular health effects have been examined more recently in prospective cohort studies, and the results do not provide significant insight into the role, if any, played by the coarse PM fraction. In addition, a limited number of studies have investigated the association between chronic exposure to coarse particles and adverse birth outcomes and infant mortality and results have been inconsistent; a small negative effect on birth weight was observed in an American multi-city study, but this association varied widely with the geographical location, the study samples, and the covariates included in the model. There are important uncertainties with respect to the possible role of co-pollutants, the appropriate measure of exposure to PM, and critical periods of exposure during pregnancy. Overall, the epidemiology data are inadequate to infer a causal relationship between chronic exposure to the coarse PM fraction and mortality, respiratory and cardiovascular health effects, as well as with the incidence of developmental outcomes.

Overall ConclusionsThe body of evidence on the health effects of coarse PM has grown since the previous assessment but is still limited compared to that available on fine PM. The respiratory system appears to be the critical target for adverse effects following exposure to coarse particles. Overall, the data on the health effects of coarse particles are weaker than for fine particles and subject to larger measurement errors. These particles are also characterized by a more heterogeneous chemical composition. However, based on dosimetric, epidemiological, and toxicological studies performed in industrialized/urban areas, the existence of adverse health effects on the respiratory system resulting from short-term exposure to coarse particles cannot be dismissed.

Date modified: 2016-01-25



Government of Canada activities and initiatives

Budget 2016

(http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/bb/brief-bref-en.html#section03?utm_source=CanCa&utm_medium=ActIni&utm_content=Inclusive&utm_campaign=CAbdgt16)Canada is at its best when all citizens are treated fairly. Learn more.

Canada Child Benefit

(http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/tool-outil/ccb-ace-en.html?utm_source=CanCa&utm_medium=Priority&utm_content=Calc&utm_campaign=CAbdgt16)Calculate your Canada Child Benefit amount.

Budget 2016 explained (video)

(http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/video/index-en.html?utm_source=CanCa&utm_medium=Priority&utm_content=ExVid&utm_campaign=CAbdgt16)Budget 2016 overview in under 2 minutes.


4/1/2016http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/particulate-particules/ind...

17853416 Climate Action Committee -

6.1l

15 February 2016

The Village of Lions Bay, British Columbia Office of the Mayor

" GMi__CM EBJ..LI.Oi AcUon: .............................................................. . .................. .tJc .. -:.·;·Jti-:i:r+···· .............. ..

The Honourable Catherine McKenna, MP Minister of Environment and Climate Change Parliament Buildings

................... :v.a~.~~ ...................... . """'''"'"""'"At;" j"""""""'""""""""'"''"H'""

Info Copy: " f'\IV'''"''""''"""'''''"'''''"''"'"'"" Rkl No ......................................................... _

Ottawa ON KlA OH3 Doc. No.: ................................................. '" ... ... CAO Tracker No.: ........................................... ..

Dear Minister McKenna:

Environmental assessment of the proposed Woodfibre LNG project near Lions Bay

I write on behalf of the Village of Lions Bay to add our voice to requests that you delay considering a federal Environment Assessment Certificate for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project proposed for the old Woodfibre Pulp site on Howe Sound near Lions Bay, until after a thorough review.

lions Bay is a thriving, engaged community of 1,400 people and 550 residences on the eastern shores of Howe Sound, a 42 km network of the southernmost fjords in North America, a place of rare beauty, indeed a jewel of Canada. Lions Bay is located about midway between the proposed LNG plant site 24 km north, and the southern end of the Sound where it enters the Georgia Strait.

As you may know, many in BC were taken aback that after only nine months of consideration, and despite widespread commentary in opposition, the BC Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO) on October 26 issued an Environmental Assessment Certificate for the project. Lions Bay had been somewhat grudgingly afforded an opportunity to participate in BCEAO's Working Group on the sea transport aspects of the project, unfortunately late in the day and past several deadlines. While our expert participant did submit voluminous comments, her requests for further information on LNG tanker wakes, unconfined vapour cloud combustion hazard, impact of underwater pressure waves on rare glass sponge reefs on the tanker route and so on, were not responded to before the certificate materialised regardless.

Beyond the shipping considerations we had a rather ineffectual voice in, and beyond the upstream and downstream GHG impact, Lions Bay is just as concerned at the project's overall impact on sea, air and land locally: impact on sea life (especially on the major herring-spawn areas around the proposed plant), impact of a second natural gas pipeline over the mountain from Port Coquitlam to increase supply six-fold to feed the plant, the discharge of 400,000 tonnes a day of warm chlorinated cooling water into the estuary at Squamish, and noise, light and vibration. Beyond environmental issues, we also want to know what the marine traffic

P.O. Box 1411400 Centre Road, Lions Bay, BC VON 2EO, CANADA www.I[onsbay.ca

+1(604) 921-9333 [email protected]


pgoingo

Text Box

LLEE

Rectangle

impact would be. Will there be exclusion zones, so that some of the 70+ vital BC Ferries sailings a day through Howe Sound would be stopped when an LNG tanker is in the offing, like in the US? Will hundreds of recreational and commercial boaters somehow have to vacate Howe Sound during tanker transits, as in Boston? Fortunately these considerations are under federal purview.

Howe Sound is recovering remarkably fast from a century of exploitation, especially since 2005 when heavy-metal acid runoff from the shut down Britannia copper mine 15 km north of here began to be treated under provincial mandate. At sea, first herring, then dolphin, then orcas returned, as have eagles, bees and other marker species on land. Our residents view Lions Bay as a steward of Howe Sound and we are concerned that this LNG project will undo a decade of progress. I'll take the opportunity to mention here that indeed we see several other projects proposed for Howe Sound-gravel extraction, run-of-river hydro, solid waste incineration, clear cutting-as contrary to its highest and best use, which is more likely to be recreation and tourism. While we're certainly grateful that a local cumulative effects assessment is underway, I do wonder at its fairly inconsequential initial values: terrestrial (but not marine) fish habitat, forest ecosystems biodiversity and grizzly bear and elk habitat.

We well understand that Canada's economy is still based on natural resources, and I'm sensitive to suggestions of NIMBYism, but I speak for many when I say that Howe Sound is not the place for an LNG plant, nor tanker traffic. It may yet transpire from federal review that a certificate is justified, or it may be that market realities shelve the proposal, but today we feel that the assessment done by BC is not adequate for issuance of any sort of certificate. Lions Bay suggests and requests that more time and care be taken for the federal process than happened here In BC, and on behalf of the municipality I offer any assistance we can provide.

Sincerely, THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE VILLAGE OF LIONS BAY

Karl Buhr Mayor

Copies by email to:

Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, MP for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country Jordan Sturdy, MLA for West Vancouver-Sea to Sky Municipality of Squamish Squamish Nation Metro Vancouver Regional District Squamish-Lillooet Regional District

2 P.O. Box 141J400 Centre Road, Lions Bay, BC VON 2EO, CANADA

www.llonsbay.ca +1{604) 921·9333

[email protected]


pgoingo

Text Box

17649499

Attachment: Lions Bay Council Resolutions

May 20, 2014, Moved and seconded: WHEREAS the waters of Howe Sound, Georgia, Haro, Malaspina and Juan de Fuca Straits provide a vital habitat for diverse bird and fish species, a corridor for recreational and marine traffic and an attraction for upland settlement; and WHEREAS Woodfibre LNG is soliciting interest to build an LNG export plant in Howe Sound, which will involve the passage of up to 40 LNG tankers annually in the Georgia Strait, which will interfere with existing marine traffic, put at risk these ecologically important and sensitive inland waters, and negatively impact upland development along this route; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Village of Lions Bay urges the federal government to ban the passage of LNG tankers in the waters of the Malaspina, Georgia, Juan de Fuca and Haro Straits, and Boundary Pass. CARRIED.

July 3, 2014, Moved and seconded: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Village of Lions Bay Council advises the [BC] Environmental Assessment Office of its concerns regarding supertanker safety, rogue waves and foreshore erosion in response to the request for feedback on the Woodfibre LNG Project. CARRIED.

October 21, 2014, Moved and seconded: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Village of Lions Bay expresses support for the submission to the Premier and Ministers responsible for Environment Assessment process related to the Woodfibre LNG Project, as outlined in the letter dated September 26, 2014 from Anthony Leoni, asking the parties to come together federally and provincially with an Environmental Assessment process which will be reported back to the elected official[s] in this area through the Howe Sound Community Forum. CARRIED.

3 P.O. Box 141I400 Centre Road, Lions Bay, BC VON 2EO, CANADA

www.lionsbay.ca +1(604) 921-9333

[email protected]


pgoingo

Text Box

6.2a~:..- metrovancouver ~ SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVABLE REGION

MAR 0 4 2016

Mayor Malcolm Brodie and Council City of Richmond 6911 No. 3 Road Richmond, BC V6Y 201 ..A

{'(\ f\t-l 0 ,_,- \

Dear Ma~die and Council :

Re: Odour Management for Solid Waste Facilities

Office of the Choir Tel. 604 432·6215 Fox 604 451-6614

File: CR·07·01·RIC

Thank you for your November 23, 2015 correspondence regarding odour management at solid waste facilities within Metro Vancouver.

I understand that the City of Richmond adopted a number of resolutions at your Council meeting held on November 9, 2015. Included in those resolutions were concerns expressed with respect to the monitoring of odours at Harvest Power; the feasibility of implementing an organics management odour control regulation for composting facilities regionally; consideration of a requirement that member municipalities be limited to disposing organic waste at facilities with air quality permits or approvals; and a request for Operational Certificates regulating air emissions and odours for existing and new municipal facilities managing organic waste. Our responses to your requests are provided below.

Harvest Fraser Richmond With respect to your first resolution, you noted that the principal source of unacceptable odours in Richmond is believed to be the Harvest Fraser Richmond composting and anaerobic digestion facility and that Harvest Fraser Richmond is currently the only composting and anaerobic digestion facility that has a permit to discharge air contaminants.

Please note that the original permit had a fixed term in anticipation of re-evaluating the air quality issues once the facility had undertaken substantial monitoring to better understand their emissions and how various operating procedures affect their emissions. Harvest Fraser Richmond has recently submitted a permit application to continue discharging air contaminants and Metro Vancouver air quality regulatory staff are working closely with Richmond staff to ensure that Richmond's air quality concerns are addressed through permitting requirements. I am advised that a public meeting will be held in March so that Metro Vancouver air quality regulatory staff and Harvest Fraser Richmond can explain the air quality permitting process and the proposed emissions to the public. This will provide important information and contextual background to members of the community. Responses from the public engagement process will be taken into consideration in the determination of permit requirements.

4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSH 4G8 • 604-432-6200 • www.metrovancouver.org

Greater Vancouver Regiona1 D strict • Greater Vancouver Water District• Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Ora nage o ·strict •Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation


17650909

Mayor Malcolm Brodie and Council, City of Richmond Odour Management for Solid Waste Facilities

Page 2 of 2

The Enviro-Smart composting operation in Delta is also initiating an air permit application and will go through a similar process to ensure that community concerns are adequately addressed through permit requirements.

Organics Management Odour Control Regulation You have also requested that Metro Vancouver investigate an organics management odour regulation. I can advise that the Climate Action Committee will be considering regulatory measures as part of its upcoming workshop for determining bylaw development priorities. To assist them in their prioritization efforts, I will forward your letter to the Climate Action Committee for consideration.

Disposal of Organic Waste You have asked that member municipalities be limited to disposing of organic waste at facilities with air quality permits or approvals. We will forward your correspondence to the Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee so that the Committee may consider your request.

Provincial Operating Certificates Metro Vancouver or municipal run facilities that manage organic wastes and recyclable materials do so in accordance with the region's Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan and the Integrated Liquid Waste and Resource Management Plan. I can advise that regardless of whether or not requirements for odour management are incorporated into Operating Certificates issued by the Province, Metro Vancouver is expending and will continue expending substantial resources to mitigate odour issues and respond to community concerns.

As a region, we've had some significant achievements in solid waste management and Richmond in particular is a regional leader achieving its solid waste diversion target of 70% two years ahead of schedule. The organics ban has played an important role in achieving Metro Vancouver's waste diversion goals. The fact that the organic wastes and recyclable materials facility located in Richmond is resulting in adverse air quality impacts, specifically unacceptable odours, in Richmond and surrounding communities is something we are attempting to address. We appreciate you sharing your concerns with Metro Vancouver and we will forward your comments to the appropriate Standing Committees so that they can be considered in further detail.

Yours truly,

Greg e Chair, Metro Vancouver Board

GM/RGH/rr

cc: Metro Vancouver Climate Action Committee Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee

17409757


pgoingo

Text Box

CLIMATE ACTION COMMITTEE On Table Item 6.4

6.2b:

City of Richmond

November 23, 2015

Mr. Greg Moore. Board Chair Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby BC V5H 4G8

Dear Greg:

Re: Odour Management For Solid Waste Facilities

Malcolm D. Brodie Mayor

6911 No. 3 Road, Richmond, BC V6Y 2C1

Telephone: 604-276-4123 Fax No: 604-276-4332

www.richmond.ca

.................... :rrc··"'"'fr&1··- ..... - .... _ .. _, Info Copy: .. :J.l.~ ....... .r .. n .- ....... _, __ , Ale No.: ..... S.({.: t:>J:::.01..::.&tv Doc. No1: l•ltlltlll lltfhlll•l lllll~Holko•Mltl HN __ _

The City has made significant progress on its commitments to reduce organic waste sent lo the Vancouver land till. In :w 13, the City achieved its target of 70 per cent diversion of solid waste for single family homes, two years ahead of the target year, and is now working with multi-family and commercial users. Diversion levels of this nature have been a regional trend and a corresponding growth in demand for organic waste management services has resulted. The City is the host community for the region's largest organics waste management facil ity, Harvest Power. At least four other major facili ties manage waste, including organics, are also in close proximity to Richmond.

The City and Metro Vancouver have noted an appreciable increase in odour complaints lately. The City and I receive numerous complaints from businesses and the public. The City understands that odours from such facilities are also an issue in Burnaby, Delta and Vancouver. The current air quality resulting from local organic waste management facilities have become unacceptable to the City and the City is requesting that Metro Vancouver enforce its air quality laws, including imposing and enforcing more protective requirements in permits. With respect to the odour management from these facilities, Harvest Power is the only facility regionally that is regulated to manage odours. Harvest Power's permit is currently being reviewed. The City will be providing input into this process to euswe <lu.able solution.; to odour issues arc included in the permit.

On November 9, 2015, Richmond City Council received a staff report (attachment 1) that indicated that some solid waste and organic waste management facilities in greater Vancouver operate under either an Operational Certificate. issued by the Ministry of Environment, or do not have air quality permits. where Metro Vancouver is the regulator. Where Operational Certificates are 111 place, these certificates can. but do not impose air quality or odour management requirements. As such, an inconsistent level of air quality protection occurs across the region. This inconsistenc) presents challenges for how regulators respond to odour complaints and how operators and regulators implement appropriate corrective measures. Finally, without regulatory requirements, there is a disincentive for operators to take proactive measures to address odour issues when they arise. The report also identified that some regional municipalities haul their organic waste to facilities that do not have air quality permits.

~11 1 0·1 ~ 1

Pane I -="--- :::>

~chmond Climate Action Committee -

pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

-2·

Accordingly. Richmond City Council, at its regular meeting held on Monday, November 9, 2015. adopted the following motion:

Tllttt stfl.ff co111i1111e lo 11w11itor 1Jtlm1r issues mu/ 11mrk 111itll Htm1es1 Po111er mu/ ~letro Vimcouver I<> tlei•elop tlttmble otlour 111i1igt1lio11 stmtegies;

Tllt1t " feller be selll to tile Metro Vi111co11w!r Bot1rtl expressi11g tlte City's com:ems regt1rtli11g c11rrelll t1ir 'f ll(l/ity /mm locfll 11rgt111ic w11s1e 111111111geme11t f11cilities tuu/ re1111e!;ti11g tll11t it illvestig11te the fetu·i/Jility of imple111e11tillg "" (}rgcmicl' mm111ge111e11t 1ulmtr colllrol reg11/atio11 for composti11g f"cilities regio11<1/ly;

Tltat " letter be selll It> the Metro Vt111co11w!r Board req11esti11g tllm it co11si<ler " re1111ireme11t t/1111 member 1111111icipt1/ities be limitetl to tlisposiug orgt111ic IVllSle atfad/ilics wit/: llir <fllality permits or upprovuls; 111ul

That a letter be se111 to tile BC Minister of £11virm1me11t requesting tlwt Oper11tio1wl Certifictlles reg11/ati11g t1ir emissions mu/ "'lours be ret111iretl for existing 111ul 11ew 1111111icipt1/ ft1cilities mmwgi11g orgtmic waste.

The City of Richmond fully suppo11s regional Zero Waste goals, and recognizes the vital role of organics recycling as part of reaching those goals. We also believe that all communities in the region would benefit from a level regulatory playing field for operators supporting the recycling of organics. Metro Vancouver can assist by working with its member municipalities to ensure that their organic waste is hauled to facilities that operate under air quality permits or Operational Certificates, when the province is the regulator. Metro Vancouver can also investigate the feasibility of implementing on organics management odour control regulation for composting facilities regionally. The above requests support the spirit of providing accountability to local communities and regulating consistency for a rapidly evolving industry.

I look forward to a response from Metro Vancouver and trust that our request will be given due consideration. For further information, please contact Peter Russell, Senior Man.igcr, Sustainability and District Energy, at [email protected] or 604-276-4130.

Yours truly,

Mq11or

All. 1


pgoingo

Text Box

To:

City of ~Richmond

Attachment 1

Report to Committee

Date: October 19, 2015

From:

General Purposes Committee

John Irving, P. Eng., MPA, Director, Engineering

File: 10-6175-02-01/2015-Vol 01

Re: Odour Management from Organic Waste Management Facilities in Richmond and Surrounding Areas

Staff Recommendation

That:

1. Staff continue to monitor odour issues and work with Harvest Power and Metro Vancouver to develop durable odour mitigation strategies.

2. A letter be sent to the Metro Vancouver Board expressing the City's concerns regarding current air quality from local organic waste management facilities and requesting that it investigate the feasibility of implementing an organics management odour control regulation for composting facilities regionally.

3. A letter be sent to the Metro Vancouver Board requesting that it consider a requirement that member municipalities be limited to disposing organic waste at facilities with air quality permits or approvals.

4. A letter be sent to the BC Minister of Environment requesting that Operational Certificates regulating air emissions and odours be required for existing and new facilities managin organic waste.

A,

REPORT CONCURRENCE

ROUTED TO: CONCURRENCE CONCJ.lBRENCE OF GENERAL MANAGER

Environmental Programs Qi' ~c~·_ --REVIEWED BY STAFF REP.ORT I INmALs:

ft"~ AGENDA REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

~ ,.

4156818


pgoingo

Text Box

October 19, 2015 • 2 -

Staff Report

Origin

This report is intended to provide Council background and contextual information regarding the recent increase in odour complaints, especially as they relate to commercial composing activities in the City, and an update on the Air Quality Permitting process for Harvest Power.

This report supports Council's 2014-2018 Term Goal #3 A Well-Planned Community:

Adhere to effective planning and growth management practices to maintain and enhance the livability, sustainability and desirability of our City and its neighbourhoods, and to ensure the results match the intentions of our policies and bylaws.

This report supports Council's 2014-2018 Term Goal #5 Partnerships and Collaboration:

Continue development and utilization of collaborative approaches and partnerships with intergovernmental and other agencies to help meet the needs of the Richmond community

Background

Regulatory Agency

Metro Vancouver has delegated authority from the Province, under the Environmental Management Act, to provide the service of air pollution control and air quality management by controlling the discharge ofair contaminants through bylaws adopted by the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board. Metro Vancouver also regulates the management of organic waste through pennits; municipally-operated waste management operations are an exemption and are regulated by the BC Ministry of the Environment. Operational Certificates are tools similar to Permits that are issued by the Province to regulate the operations of prescribed industries, in order to assure responsible management of discharges to the environment, including for air emissions. Major organic waste management facilities in operation in or near Richmond include: Harvest Power (currently operating as Harvest Fraser Richmond Organics, Ltd), the City of Vancouver's Kent transfer station (Vancouver), the Vancouver Landfill (Delta), Enviro-Smart Organics Ltd. (Delta) and Revolution Resource Recovery (Vancouver).

Harvest Power Odour Management

Locally, Harvest Power has been operating a compost, soil recycling, and biofuel energy production facility at 7028 York Road for several years. The operation of the green waste processing facility has held a Composting Facility License since 1997. The operation includes open row composting of mixed organic wastes (soils, lawn waste, and food scraps) and enclosed digestion of high-calorie organic wastes (residentia) and commercial food scraps) for the production ofbiogas that is in turn burned to generate electricity (the "Energy Garden''). To meet., regional landfill diversion targets, Harvest Power recently started receiving packaged organic materials (e.g. canned goods, packed meats, etc.). Harvest Power has been receiving organic materials collected by the City of Richmond since it started recycling organic waste, initially with yard trimmings then growing to include organics. The City's current agreement

41~6818 CNCL-127


pgoingo

Text Box

LLEE

Rectangle

October 19, 2015 - 3 -

with Harvest Power is valid through to June 30, 2019; the City has options for two additional terms of sixty months each.

Harvest Power was given an Air Quality Permit in 2013, pursuant to the Greater Vancouver Regional District Air Quality Management Bylaw No. 1082, after a lengthy and iterative process which included input from the City and consultation with Metro Vancouver engineers and subject experts. The Permit identifies sources of odour and other air pollutants, identifies standards for various regulated parameters (nitrogen oxides, particulates, volatile organic compounds, etc.,) and sets out a monitoring system to assure compliance. The initial permit expired in June 2015, however, a temporary Approval was granted by Metro Vancouver. This effectively extends the conditions of the original permit until December 31, 2015 to provide Harvest Power and Metro Vancouver an opportunity to continue to collect data, revise their Permit and work to address issues that may arise. When permits are issued, stakeholders and the public are invited to provide feedback on proposed conditions of the permit.

Under the conditions of the permit, odours are generally controlled through biofilter technology. These are bodies of organic media supporting microbes that metabolize the odourous compounds of the air passed through them, and reduce odour by an order of magnitude or more. Combined with adequate dispersion, biofilters can manage most odours effectively. Some operations are enclosed; waste feedstock for the Energy Garden biodigesters is managed in an enclosed building where exhaust air passes through scrubbers to reduce or remove odours. During the existing permit period, according to Metro Vancouver it is believed that odour complaints may have been received when the biofilters are degraded, either through overheating or contamination by ammonia, which upsets the organic balance in the filter media.

In the past, odour complaints linked to Harvest Power have increased when broadcast or print media draws attention to the operation. In some cases, a portion of the complaints are not attributed to Harvest operations, but to other sources in the area, such as fanning practices or issues related to sewer treatment plants. Previous spikes in complaints have occurred in the early fall, which Metro Vancouver attributes to weather conditions that prevent the dissipation of odours. Fall weather is typically defined by frequent temperature inversions and calm winds; the same conditions that create foggy conditions at ground level. These weather conditions have been persistent in Richmond this year, bringing a peak in odours and complaints.

Odour Complaint Management

As air quality permit issuance is through Metro Vancouver, Metro Vancouver is responsible for receiving and responding to odour complaints. When receiving a complaint, Metro Vancouver staff will forward the anonymized complaint to the most likely source. The City also receives complaints directly through various channels. When arriving at Front of House or the City Switchboard, customers are instructed to direct their complaint to the Metro Vancouver 24-hour Air Quality Complaints phone line and/or the online Air Quality Complaints Form. If customers desire more feedback from the City, they are generally put in contact with Environmental Sustainability staff, who are more able to explain the technicalities of the concern and direct the complaint to be more effective. If multiple complaints are received in a short period of time, City staff contact Metro Vancouver Regulation & Enforcement staff to assure that complaints are being registered and to determine what specific actions are being taken by Metro Vancouver regulatory staff.

4756818 CNCL-128


pgoingo

Text Box

LLEE

Rectangle

LLEE

Rectangle

October 19, 2015 - 4 -

Harvest Power tracks complaints that they receive from Metro Vancouver and others sources, and provides a monthly report to Metro Vancouver and the City of Richmond. Harvest Power manages a "Progressive Odour Management Plan" which involves a review of complaints received. Complaints received are characterised as "likely" or "not likely" to be a result of their operations; weather and wind conditions are reviewed during this analysis. As part of this, Harvest undertakes air dispersion modelling to help detennine the impact of weather conditions on odour travel and to aid in identifying potential site sources to focus on. The last report received by the City was on August 14, 2015, covering the time up to July 31, 2015.

Analysis

Recent Issues and Short Tenn Actions at Harvest Power

Harvest Power has occasionally had challenges meeting their odour targets over the years. In particular, this has been an issue when the Energy Garden was introduced as well as when the recent ban on food scraps disposal identified in Metro Vancouver's Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Management Plan led to an overall increase in waste being received at the facility. Recently reported anomalous issues or process changes include:

• Packaged Organic Waste: Harvest Power reports that they have been accepting some packaged organic material to be processed in the Energy Garden. Initially, packaging was manually depackaged; this slow process has resulted in longer than expected on-site storage. Harvest Power is currently in the process of permitting and conunissioning covered automated 'depacking' equipment which will decrease storage times. The new system also includes leachate management recovery.

• Biodigesters: In January, Harvest Power cleaned their biodigesters as a maintenance procedure, but had difficulties in restoring the system's biogas scrubbers. Harvest Power reports that the repairs have now been completed and they expect that the system should be fully operational.

• Biofilter: Harvest Power reported that they have one underperfonning biofilter on site that is scheduled to be replaced in October, 2015. It is Metro Vancouver's and the City's experience that complaints decrease after the biofilter media has been changed.

Staff most recently met with Harvest Power on October glh to discuss concerns and solutions. As a short term response, Harvest Power agreed to add more wood chips to the compost piles, reduce pile height, and increase the turnaround time for scheduled windrow biofilters. These measures, in addition to the resolved issues listed above, should lead to reduced odour complaints. Longer term, the City will have opportunities to comment through the pennit renewal process, described below. Long term, covering options of the operations or limiting the amount of waste handled on the site may be required.

Regulation of Other Regional Composting Facilities

Other facilities may be causing detectable odour issues in Richmond. Of all the facilities listed in this report (Harvest Power, Vancouver Kent Transfer Station, Vancouver Landfill, EnviroSmart and Revolution), only Harvest Power operates under a Metro Vancouver air quality permit. The City of Vancouver facilities are exempt from Metro Vancouver air permitting, but are regulated by the provincial Ministry of the Environment. The Vancouver Landfill operates

47SGBl8 CNCL -129


pgoingo

Text Box

LLEE

Rectangle

'

October 19, 2015 - 5 -

under an Operational Certificate but the conditions do not address air quality or odour management. Vancouver's Kent Yard site does not have an operational certificate that regulates odours as well. It is our understanding that Enviro-Smart currently does not have an air quality permit. Metro Vancouver has been pursuing this matter with the operator. Some regional municipalities currently haul organic waste to private sector facilities that do not have air quality permits.

Metro Vancouver advises that while it is still possible that odours from these facilities are detected in Richmond, the majority of "compost" odour complaints in Richmond that are investigated by Metro Vancouver are suspected to trace back to Harvest Power. Despite this fact, there is a disparity regionally in how these facilities are regulated for air quality and until such time that all facilities are operating under the same odour management requirements, it will be difficult to ascertain odour sources and implement appropriate corrective measures. For this reason, a recommendation is included in this report for Council to request that the Metro Vancouver Board consider a requirement that member municipalities be limited to hauling or managing organic waste at facilities with air quality permits or Approvals pursuant to the Greater Vancouver Regional District Air Quality Management Bylaw, or operating under an Operational Certificate from the BC Ministry of Environment that regulates air emissions and odours for municipal facilities.

Metro Vancouver Permitting Process and Harvest Power Permit Review

Harvest Power is currently operating under an Approval from Metro Vancouver. The short term Approval provides Harvest Power and Metro Vancouver with the necessary time to develop a new Air Quality Permit. Technical details of the new permit application are currently being reviewed by Metro Vancouver. Although the current Approval expires on December 31, 2015, an extension may be granted if the pennitting process carmot be completed by that date. The number of complaints is an important input into the permitting process, allowing Metro Vancouver to negotiate more stringent odour management measures.

Permit applications of this type are subject to the provincial Public Notification Regulation. The details of the public consultation in regards to the new Permit have not yet been detennined, however Metro Vancouver have indicated that local newspaper notices and direct engagement of stakeholders (including the City of Richmond and people who have registered complaints through the Metro Vancouver complaints system) will be included in the review. A public meeting, intended to give the proponent an opportunity to explain their compliance plan to the public, is possible but has not been confirmed at this time. Staff are prepared to engage in this process and will bring a report forward summarizing key concerns and priorities for the City.

Financial Impact

None.

Conclusion

An increase of odour complaints has been noted by the City and Metro Vancouver. Staff met with both Harvest Power and Metro Vancouver staff to better understand current issues and to identify solutions. Harvest Power has committed to some immediate and on-going changes in

47S6818 CNCL-130


pgoingo

Text Box

LLEE

Rectangle

17611848

October 19, 2015 - 6-

their operations to address the City's concerns. Metro Vancouver is currently reviewing a draft air quality permit recently submitted by Harvest Power. The City and members of the public will have an opportunity to provide input on the permit in late 2015 or early 2016. Staff analysis also revealed that similar organic waste management facilities in the region do not have air quality permits or operational certificates, in the case of municipal facilities, that regulate air quality and odours. Staff recommend that letters be sent to both Metro Vancouver and the BC Ministry of Environment requesting that these facilities be regulated for air quality. City staff will continue to monitor odour complaints and work closely with Harvest Power, Metro Vancouver and the province to address and mitigate odour concerns. Staff will also continue to direct public complaints to Metro Vancouver since complaint frequency is a factor considered at the time of air quality permit review.

Peter Russell Senior Manager, Sustainability and District Energy (604-276-4130)

PR:pj

ns6111 CNCL -131

I


pgoingo

Text Box

pgoingo

Text Box

LLEE

Rectangle

GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT …...Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner Planning, Policy and...

Documents

Transcript of GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT …...Jason Emmert, Air Quality Planner Planning, Policy and...