Decision Date: August 12, 1997

Panel: Toby Vigod, Harry Higgins, Elizabeth Keay

Keywords: Waste Management Act – s.10, Ministry of Environment Procedure Manual, volume 8, s.1(01.11); Leakey v. Environmental Health Officer (Appeal No. 96/21); Endeavour Developments Ltd. v. Deputy Director of Waste Management (Appeal No. 94/38); secondary treatment plant; CAM program; multiport diffuser; environmental protection; security bond

The Little River Environmental Protection Society (“LREPS”) appealed the January 20, 1997 decision of the Deputy Director of Waste Management to uphold a decision of the Assistant Regional Waste Manager issuing a permit for King Coho Resort’s sewage outfall into the ocean. LREPS appealed on the grounds that the Deputy Director failed to do the following: to restrict influent, to reduce the maximum discharge, to require a reassessment of the environmental impact of the proposed effluent, to provide conditions necessary to establish enforceable limits on the rate and discharge characteristics of effluent, and to require sufficient conditions for protection of the environment. LREPS sought to have the permit set aside or, in the alternative, to have it amended.

In terms of restricting influent, which is the raw waste coming into the treatment plant, the Board agreed with the Deputy Director’s requirement for a grease trap for the restaurant and for education material to customers on what should be disposed of in the sewage system. As for sewage effluent, the Board upheld the Deputy Director’s decision to have the Regional Waste Manager recalculate the maximum discharge limits. The Board further required median values for the sewage discharge and a multiport diffuser for the outfall pipe to dilute the effluent. The Board found that sufficient data existed to assess the environmental impact of the effluent, and it supported the Deputy Director’s requirement to ensure monitoring and reporting of the disposal system. The Board also found that there should be sufficient storage capacity for effluent during repairs and upsets of the system and that there should be alarms for identifying upsets. The Board determined that the environment would be adequately protected by the system. However, it required King Coho Resort to give a security bond to the Regional Waste Manager, the amount of which would increase as the volume of effluent increased with the growth of the development. In order that the environment be further protected, the Board also required the following from King Coho Resort: the Resort provide adequate information and facilities for the proper disposal of chemicals, the Resort investigate effluent reuse options, the Resort install water saving devices, and the Resort perform a study of the shellfish and bioconcentration at the outfall site. Ultimately, the Board upheld the decision of the Deputy Director, except in regard to the security issue. The Board ordered a number of conditions to be attached to the permit and referred the amended permit back to the Regional Waste Manager for approval.