Ministry of Environment and Parks JUDGEMENT:

Transcription

1 Province of British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD Victoria British Columbia V8V 1X5 APPEAL NO. 87/23 PES JUDGEMENT: In the appeals of Dr. Michael D. Kates and Concerned Citizens Against Chemical Spraying, against the Pesticide Control Act Pesticide Use Permit /89, issued to B.C. Railway, for the application of the herbicide, Roundup, to B.C. Railway right-of-way between Mileboard 2 and Mileboard 12, through West Vancouver. PUP /89 is an application of Roundup to 20.0 hectares of B.C. Rail right-of-way. The target species is blackberries and the application rate is 2.0 kg. active ingredient per hectare. The methods of application are backpack sprayer and powerhose nozzle. APPELLANTS Dr. Michael D. Kates Suite 400, 145 West 17th Avenue North Vancouver, B. C. V7M IV5 Concerned Citizens Against Chemical Spraying c/o Mrs. Emma Ross-Awde 4480 Keith Road West Vancouver, B.C. V7W 2M5

2 APPEAL NO. 87/23 PES PAGE 2 DECISION: The Environmental Appeal Board, authorized under the Pesticide Control Act and the Environment Management Act to hear the appeals of Dr. Michael D. Kates and the Concerned Citizens Against Chemical Spraying against Pesticide Use Permit /89, issued to B.C. Railway for the control of blackberries along the B. C. Rail right-of-way in West Vancouver, has considered all the evidence submitted to it at the hearing in North Vancouver on November 20th and 21st, 1987, and has decided that the implementation of this herbicide program under the terms of the Permit as amended in this decision will not cause an unreasonable adverse effect on mankind or the environment. It was established during the hearing that B.C. Rail has four reasons for applying Roundup along the right-of-way. These are: 1) To ensure access by the West Vancouver Fire Department to residential properties in case of emergency. 2) To maintain a clear line of sight for train crews along this section of the railway. 3) To remove blackberry vines beside the tracks where these vines constitute a safety hazard to train crews. 4) To prevent deterioration of the ballast section of the track by the roots of the blackberry plants. The Board feels that these are legitimate reasons for controlling the growth of the blackberries. The Board is also aware that the citizens of West Vancouver have every right to prohibit the application of herbicide to their private properties. B.C. Rail is, therefore, directed, as a condition of the use of this permit, to

3 APPEAL NO. 87/23 PES PAGE 3 apply the herbicide Roundup only by spot treatment, and at no greater distance from the centerline of the tracks, at any point, than is necessary to meet the requirements of the four reasons for treatment as stated on Page 2 of this document. With the exception of this amendment to the Permit, the appeals are dismissed. GENERAL COMMENTS OF THE PANEL 1) The Federal Government of Canada has the jurisdiction to register pesticides for use in Canada. It has given full registration to the herbicide, Roundup, and this allows it to be used in Canada, provided it is used in a safe manner and in accordance with the pesticide label. 2) The Provincial Government's jurisdiction and, therefore, the Environmental Appeal Board's jurisdiction, lies in ensuring that where pesticides are used in British Columbia, they are used safely and in accordance with the provincial rules governing their handling and application. A provincial pesticide use permit is sitespecific in the conditions and terms allowed within the permit. A person appealing a permit will, therefore, attempt to prove to the Board that the permit holder will not apply, or is not capable of applying, the herbicide safely and in accordance with the permit and the pesticide label, or that the specific site involved will not lend itself to a safe application of the herbicide. 3) The Board is aware that Roundup has been previously used on many occasions for vegetation control in British Columbia. No adverse effects resulting from the use of this herbicide under the terms of a permit in Canada have ever been reported.

4 APPEAL NO. 87/23 PES PAGE 4 4) The only evidence brought forward at this hearing to indicate that any adverse effects had resulted from the use of Roundup came from anecdotal reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. As far as can be noted, none of these accounts dealt with a properly controlled application of the chemical, and certainly not within the usual terms of a British Columbia pesticide use permit. It should be emphasized that there is a host of everyday chemicals which require no registration but which can be harmful if mishandled - for example; gasoline, solvents, paint strippers, common lye, alcohol, non-prescription drugs, etc. 5) Several witnesses expressed concern with possible health effects, but no evidence to support these concerns was forthcoming. 6) There was a good deal of discussion during the hearing related to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's testing requirements and to U.S. registration of pesticides. These matters are very obviously outside the terms of reference of the British Columbia Environmental Appeal Board. 7) In the evidence presented by Miss Kansky, seven examples were outlined of ways in which products with inadequate or incomplete data might be used in Canada. She failed, however, to establish that Roundup falls in any one of these categories. Miss Kansky further stated that there is nothing to prohibit the Provincial authorities or the Environmental Appeal Board from entering into an examination of the safety of registered products. The Environmental Appeal Board accepts this premise and would not fail to take some action should evidence be forthcoming to indicate the likelihood of an unreasonable adverse effect resulting from the use of a registered pesticide under the terms of a provincial permit.

5 APPEAL NO. 87/23 PES PAGE 5 8) Having reached the decision that no unreasonable adverse effect will result from the use of this permit, the Board has not felt it necessary to pursue further the availability or efficacy of alternative methods of vegetation control. 9) During the hearing, many questions were raised regarding procedural matters in applying for, advertising, permitting and posting of Pesticide Use Permits. The Board feels that these matters are more properly dealt with by the Administrator of the Pesticide Control Act. The Administrator's attention is particularly drawn to the incorrect posting of this particular permit, where only the permit form and not the application form was posted. The Board accepts the B.C. Rail statement that this was not intentional but asks that the Administrator deal wih this infraction as he sees fit. It is strongly recommended that instructions to permit holders regarding posting be improved so as to make it very clear exactly which documents are to be posted. 10) The Board wishes to thank Mr. Michael Wan of Environment Canada for accepting the Board's invitation to attend the hearing and for his useful comments. R. F. Patterson, Ph.D., Panel Chairman, Environmental Appeal Board Victoria, B. C. January 29th, 1988