Decision Date: September 25, 2002

Panel: Alan Andison

Keywords: Sewage Disposal Regulation – ss. 3, 6(b), 7(1)(b), 7(2), Schedule 3 – s.5; repair or alteration of an existing sewage disposal system

Chevron Canada Ltd. (“Chevron”) appealed a decision of a Public Health Inspector for the Fraser Health Region denying its sewage disposal permit application.

Chevron proposed to change its sewage disposal system to accommodate the expansion of its gas station to include an on-site White Spot restaurant. Chevron argued that the permit should have been approved under section 7(2) of the Sewage Disposal Regulation because the proposed system was an alteration to the current system that was built prior to 1985.

The Public Health Inspector submitted that the proposed system was not an “alteration” but an entirely new system, and that the proposed system posed a danger to public health because of site limitations.

The Board found that section 7(2) did not apply because Chevron’s expanded operations would result in completely different sewage disposal needs than the original system was currently serving. The Board distinguished this case from Huber v. Environmental Health Officer (Appeal No. 00-HEA-033, November 28, 2000) where section 7(2) was found to apply.

The Board found that the ultimate test for any permit application is whether the proposed system poses a health hazard. The Board found that there was a history of failures and repairs with Chevron’s current system because of site limitations. The Board also found that the proposed system would result in an increase and change in type of effluent going through the system because of the addition of the restaurant, and the additional staff and customers. The Board concluded that it was reasonable to believe that exceeding the effluent limit for this site, imposed under a 1989 permit, would create a public health risk in the form of potential effluent breakout and overload. The Board found that the 1989 permit also included a condition stipulating no increases in effluent amounts for the site. The Board found that this permit was not subject to this appeal and could therefore not be varied by the Board.

The appeal was dismissed.