West Coast Environmental Law
Research Foundation
NewsletterWest Coast Environmental Law
Research Foundation
NewsletterWCELA Executive Director Bill Andrews told the federal Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainability on April 12th that it would be a mistake to try to meet three separate objectives -- environmental auditing, environmental policy analysis, and environmental complaints resolution -- by the creation of a single office of environmental auditor general. Instead, he called for strengthening the environmental mandate of the existing Auditor General, requiring federal agencies to report their impact on environmental sustainability, forming a new Environmental Ombudsperson office, and creating an independent environmental policy body.
Federal Environment Minister Sheila Copps asked the Committee to hold hearings into implementing the governing Liberal Party's commitment to establish an environmental auditor general. The goal is "to promote sustainable development as an integral component of decision-making at all levels of our society... -- to take an integrated approach to economic, social, environmental and foreign policy." The specific objective is to provide an accountability mechanism that is independent of government. The Committee is to report by the end of May.
WCELA recommended that the existing Auditor General be required to consider environmental sustainability factors in all audits of government agencies, including reporting on the extent to which federal environmental standards and objectives have or have not been complied with or met. WCELA supported the establishment of a separate environmental section headed by a deputy auditor general within the Office of the Auditor General, and called for adequate funding for this environmental section.
WCELA also recommended that all federal departments and agencies be required to report annually on the impact of their programs and spending on environmental sustainability, and that the Office of the Auditor General monitor this reporting and assist departments to implement suitable methodology.
To distinguish clearly between the auditing function and the complaints resolution function, WCELA suggested legislating an office of federal Environmental Ombudsperson. This office would promote environmental sustainability by investigating and fostering voluntary resolution of conflicts regarding federal agencies, upon re-ceiving a complaint from an individual; on its own initiative; or, upon receiving a referral from Parliament. It would report and make recommendations directly to Parliament. Andrews argued that the need for strong, independent environmental policy analysis is very important -- and very different from the auditing and complaints resolution functions. Without specifying which body should be responsible for the task, he recommended legislation to mandate a body to monitor and make recommendations to Parliament regarding the extent to which (a) federal laws and policies promote environmental sustainability, and (b) both federal and provincial laws and policies honour Canada's international obligations and stated objectives regarding sustainability and protection of the environment.
Review of the most recent Ministry of Environment, Lands and Park's list of polluters in significant non-compliance with their waste discharge permits indicates six municipalities or regional districts whose sewage discharges are out of compliance with their permits. An additional six local government-owned sewage treatment facilities are listed as being "pollution concerns".
Even for local governments in compliance with their waste discharge permits, publicly-operated sewage systems are among the largest dischargers into British Columbia's water courses. For instance, over thirty percent of the total waste water -- including agricultural and urban runoff, and storm sewer discharges -- discharged into the Fraser River estuary is from local government sewage treatment systems.
Toxic chemicals, along with microbiological contaminants, are considered the greatest threats from municipal discharges. There are a huge number of chemicals found in municipal waste discharges which, in most cases, are not regulated by local governments as they enter sewer systems and are only sporadically regulated by the province (other than for acute toxicity) as they leave these systems. Some of these substances are persistent, bioaccumulative and can be highly toxic, carcinogenic or teratogenic.
These toxic discharges are not limited to discharges from large industries but also from the types of businesses found in most small and medium sized towns: autobody chrome plating and radiator shops, dry cleaners, dental offices, hospitals, boat yards, photo developers, laboratories and furniture factories.
Although the province's latest policy on local government discharges requires development of secondary treatment systems, secondary treatment is often ineffective in reducing toxic contaminants. Secondary treatment, and even tertiary treatment which the province requires only in limited circumstances, may allow toxic substances to pass through the system untreated or only concentrate substances in sewage sludge, limiting the sludge's value for other purposes.
The Fraser River Action Plan calls for the virtual elimination of persistent toxic chemicals from discharge into the Fraser River drainage system. If this goal is to be met, it is essential that local governments take action, not only to improve their sewage treatment systems but also to regulate the discharges into their systems.
Unfortunately, few local governments outside of the Greater Vancouver Regional District have taken significant steps in regulating discharges into their sewers. Often municipal sewer use bylaws are limited to regulating the size of pipes that can be connected to the municipal sewer systems and imposing a general prohibition against industrial wastes which will inhibit the municipality's sewer treatment system. Industrial and commercial dischargers, if they are even aware of the bylaw, are often left to guess what these substances are.
A few other local governments put some limits on discharges such as maximum acidity and maximum concentrations of a few of the many substances which are routinely discharged into sewer systems. Although these bylaws are better than nothing, they neglect to regulate many problem substances, do little to ensure that dischargers implement control or pollution prevention measures beyond whatever is necessary to meet their maximum permissible discharges, and seldom include provisions that allow adequate enforcement of the bylaw.
The result can be that local governments either do not treat or do not pay the relatively high cost of treating a discharge which could be controlled relatively cheaply at source. Source control is both environmentally and fiscally preferable to placing the sole burden of treatment on cash strapped local governments. Even where local governments have an existing capacity to accept and treat commercial or industrial waste, by not implementing source control now they may hasten the day when their facility will need to be expanded to accommodate further growth or tighter environmental regulation.
However, local governments have the tools necessary to regulate discharges into their sewers. Under the Waste Management Act, regional districts which provide sewer treatment services and municipalities which have successfully applied for designation as sewer control areas have the power to impose conditions on commercial and industrial dischargers. They can also limit discharges and require control technology and effluent monitoring.
Also, under the Municipal Act, municipalities have the power to set sewer use fees which discourage toxic inputs and encourage dischargers to use the best available technology. For instance, municipalities could charge a fee per kilogram of contaminant discharged or permitted for discharge into the sewer system. Alternatively, they could charge a relatively high annual sewer use rate for a dry cleaning business that uses dirty technology, but offer a lower rate for one which uses clean technology.
Although the legislation granting these powers could be improved to clearly allow measures such as mandatory pollution prevention planning, local governments are not without the legal power to regulate discharges into their systems.
Just as important as having the legal powers to regulate, local governments also have available to them a number of resources which can assist in developing source control bylaws appropriate to their circumstances:
As part of the Fraser River Action Plan, Environment Canada has recently published a booklet called Sewer Use Control for Fraser River Basin and Burrard Inlet Drainage Basin. This booklet discusses and evaluates source control systems in the United States (particularly Seattle) and in Ontario. It also describes the steps involved in developing effective sewer use bylaws for local governments in B.C.
An appendix to Sewer Use Control for Fraser River includes the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw and the Ontario Model Bylaw to Control Waste Discharges to Municipal Sewers. Both of these are potential models which, with only a few minor changes, could be adopted by local governments in B.C.
The appendix to Sewer Use Control for Fraser River also includes a model sewer use bylaw developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Seattle's sewer use bylaw. Although the American bylaws could not be adopted without significant changes in British Columbia, they indicate ways in which B.C. municipalities could adopt bylaws even more progressive than the Ontario's model bylaw or the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District Sewer Use Bylaw.
The provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks' municipal liquid waste planning guide outlines the liquid waste management planning process. This includes the development of programs on source control, as well as related issues such as storm water controls, sewage treatment and water quality monitoring. The Ministry's guide also outlines the need for a comprehensive public consultation process as part of liquid waste management planning. As part of the source control plan, the local government can require industries discharging to sewers to complete pollution prevention plans aimed at finding feasible options for reducing the creation of waste through techniques such as redesigning production processes and improving housekeeping and in-process recycling.
Local governments that require permits from some or all industrial and commercial dischargers could require that pollution prevention plans be implemented before permits are issued. The advantages of such a system over equal limits for all businesses or all businesses of the same class include ensuring that discharges are reduced wherever possible and not merely as required by "bottom line" bylaws. Implementation of pollution prevention plans may or may not be mandatory; often companies which are forced to develop plans voluntarily implement because they discover potential cost savings from reducing their creation of waste.
Local governments can also adopt various guidelines, codes of practice or regulations which establish discharge limits for particular industries. For instance, local governments could require compliance with codes of good practice being developed by the Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District for discharges into their system. Similarly, in the United States most major industrial dischargers into municipal sewer systems must comply with National Categorical Pretreatment Standards which have been developed for 23 categories of industries. The Standards are technology based and vary from industry to industry with some flexibility for exceptional circumstances. Portions of these standards could be adapted for and adopted by local governments in B.C.
Contents of sewer use bylaws will vary from local government to local government. Different local treatment systems may be vulnerable to different contaminants and may be ineffective in treating different contaminants, making it necessary to vary discharge limits from one system to another. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has developed a computer program specifically aimed at determining appropriate discharge levels according the make-up of industrial and commercial users and the capacity of the local treatment facility.
The contents of bylaws will also vary significantly according to what financial and manpower resources municipalities are willing to allocate to sewer use control and the municipalities' political will to strictly regulate discharges from local businesses. Although controlling sewer use now may avoid some future costs, it is not clear that all municipalities are willing to make that upfront commitment.
The B.C. Utilities Commission ("BCUC") established the requirement that utilities must file for BCUC approval an integrated resource plan ("IRP") that will be reviewed every two years. Integrated resource planning requires the utility to demonstrate how social and environmental costs and benefits have been considered in their long-range plans to meet the demand for energy in their service area. Public participation is a requirement for the development of an IRP.
The first integrated resource plan was submitted for public review by West Kootenay Power Ltd. at a public hearing held on March 7-18 in Rossland, B.C. WCELA intervened in this hearing on behalf of the Energy Coalition to address two issues: (1) the inadequacy of the public involvement process conducted by West Kootenay Power; and, (2) fundamental flaws in the social costing methodology used to ranking proposed energy projects according to their costs and benefits.
The consultative committee selected by West Kootenay Power did not include representation from the environmental community; nor did it provide those members that were chosen with adequate information to make informed decisions about the environmental impacts associated with different energy technologies or individual projects.
After cross-examination by WCELA, West Kootenay Power admitted that there were problems with its social costing methodology. In fact, the only conclusion to be drawn from the nature and extent of these problems is that the results of the IRP are totally unreliable.
Written submissions were filed on Tuesday, March 29. The final decision of the BCUC whether or not to approve the West Kootenay Power IRP is expected by the end of May. For more information, call Carol Reardon at WCELA.
WCELRF Newsletter, copyright 1994, is published by the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. This issue was produced by Bill Andrews, Morgan Ashbridge, Glenna Forrest, Chris Heald, Ann Hillyer, Catherine Ludgate, Denice Regnier, Carol Reardon, Chris Rolfe, and Kim Stanton. Subscription information is below. West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation does research and education and maintains an environmental law library. West Coast Environmental Law Association provides legal representation and promotes law reform. The mission of West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation and West Coast Environmental Law Association is to provide legal services to protect the environment and to foster public participation in environmental decision-making. We are grateful to the Law Foundation of British Columbia for core funding of West Coast Environmental Law Association and West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. Donations to West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation are tax creditable.