(NOTE TO READER: This article, to which various JBNA members have contributed, is an attempt to put this preliminary report into non-technical language for the information of James Bay residents. Links to the James Bay Air Quality Study, Phases 1&2 will be posted at jbna.org as they become available. Questions may be directed to Karla Poplawski by email at poplawsk@uvic.ca, although she bears no responsibility for inadvertent distortions which may occur in the article.)

It may not be as bad as many feared – but where do we go from here?

Background

Concerns about noise and traffic density of the various modes of transportation are an ongoing concern in James Bay. So when James Bay residents began reporting noxious chemical smells and black soot layering windows, decks and gardens, they had opinions about the source, but no facts to back up the opinions. An initial look at Phases II & III of the James Bay Air Quality Study, presented at the meeting of the James Bay Neighbourhood Association (JBNA) in December 2008, gave residents food for thought.

The preliminary report on Phase II, the Air Quality Dispersion Modelling Component of the James Bay Air Quality Study (JBAQS) was presented by Karla Poplawski. The study focuses on cruise ship effluents and their impact on Victoria. Poplawski served as the contact between the JBNA and the study group and was a primary study researcher from the Spatial Sciences Research Lab (SSRL) of the University of Victoria.

Pollutant Sources

Potential emission sources in James Bay include light and heavy-duty motor vehicle traffic, helicopters, float planes, and marine vessels such as cruise ships, the passenger/vehicle ferries MV Coho and Victoria Clipper, commercial fishing and whale watching boats, and recreational motorboats.

The Process

Poplawski explained the Phase I process of field monitoring during the summer of 2007 to establish existing levels of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), fine particulates (PM10 and PM2.5), metals (nickel and vanadium), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), as well as vehicle traffic volume in selected locations.

She then explained how Phase II had focused on the predicted ambient concentrations of pollutants, predominately from the large marine sources: cruise ships and ferries. The study looked at a 20 km2 square area centered on the Ogden Point terminal during the 2007 cruise ship season, April 24 to November 3 inclusive. (Pollution is generally expressed in micro-milligrams of pollutant per meter of air cubed.)

Noteworthy Observations

• Overall air quality in James Bay is better than in most cities and effluent levels are generally below the maximum desirable guidelines.


• The 24-hour guideline established by the World Health Organization (WHO) for exposure to sulfur dioxide (SO2) was exceeded about 3% of the study time in James Bay. These events coincided with the presence of cruise ships at Ogden Point.


• The 1-hour guideline established by the Capital Regional District (CRD) for nitrogen dioxide (NO2, or NOx) exposure was exceeded once (out of 4656 hours of study) for the Songhees area.


• The greatest concentrations of atmospheric pollutants occurred during stable/neutral meteorological conditions, particularly between 10pm and midnight, when the maximum number of ships were in port, or departing.


• Analysis of highrise building exposure suggested that short-term 1-hour effluent levels for SO2 and NO2 may be up to 53% higher at the 10th floor (30 m) level of a building than at ground level.


• Cruise ships at berth and in transit were the major contributors to all pollutants considered, based on the model outputs.


• The susceptibility to respiratory illness in James Bay is considered to be relatively low – children under age 15 with asthma make up 5% of the age group, while seniors over 65 with asthma make up only 3% of the age group; a total of 132 people out of a population of 11,000.


• Seniors over the age of 65 with a chronic pulmonary condition (259 people) represent 8% of the population.

Project Limitations

• aircraft (helicopter and float plane) emissions were not included.


• the study was done using the natural topographical features of the land.


• the model was not able to adjust for the 'concrete canyon' effect created by large buildings along the edges of the harbour. Increased pollutant levels could be expected in the harbour area due to the urban canyon.


• ground-level diesel bus traffic effluent was not explored in detail (i.e. the high correlation of bus traffic with cruise ship activity was not modelled).


• the study did not consider Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) levels & dispersion.

Emission sources and pollutants beyond the scope of the study (float planes, helicopters and diesel buses) remain an ongoing concern to James Bay residents. The impact of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are recognized in the JBAQS as an area in need of future air quality investigation.

Potential Health Implications

Poplawski’s presentation was followed by Dr. Tom Kosatsky, Associate Director of Environmental Health, BC Centre for Disease Control (CDC), who discussed potential health implications for residents of James Bay and Victoria:

• any level of pollution has effect.


• the effect of air pollutants differs among individuals.


• there are varying levels of susceptibility associated with children, the elderly, and people with particular health difficulties.


• the health problems associated with NOx, SO2, and PM2.5 and PM10 differ.


• high short term (minutes/hours) levels of pollutants can affect people more quickly than lower levels of longer term exposure.


• slight increases, at what might be thought to be a low level, could affect the susceptible/vulnerable.


• JBAQS pollution levels, compared to most other Canadian cities, are good (Winnipeg is better).


• concentrations of all pollutants measured at the BC Ministry of Environment Topaz Station were significantly higher, indicating that other sources contribute to ambient concentrations of pollutants in the study area.


• CRD and Provincial guidelines and standards (for SO2) are 20 years old and should not be considered as relevant as the more current (5-year old) World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines).

Dr. Kosatsky suggested that the emission of VOCs and other toxic substances (not measured, or modelled, in the JBAQS) released into the Victoria harbour airshed by float planes and helicopters, at current levels of activity, are likely to generate larger health-related concerns than the current level of cruise ship emissions.

He acknowledged that the toxic substances in VOC emissions are harder to measure and, accordingly, less is known about the health effects of VOC exposure. He recommended that VOC emissions into the Victoria harbour airshed by float planes and helicopters be measured and monitored by Environment Canada.

Recommendations & Future Directions

• the ‘significant’ gap in VOC data/information was identified.


• float plane and helicopter effluents should be studied.


• bus emissions should be studied.


• VOCs should be measured and monitored by Environment Canada.


• further studies of cruise ship effluents aren’t needed; the emphasis should be on mitigation.

Comment

The study has limitations in that the focus is on cruise ship and large ferry emissions alone, while not examining aerodrome and other marine contributors. The study nevertheless provides an important benchmark. That benchmark, containing limited exceedences in terms of WHO guidelines, suggests that air pollution in James Bay, as produced by current cruise ships and vehicle traffic levels, has reached a level of saturation which is within acceptable standards. This conclusion may not apply to specific areas of James Bay (and to the Songhees) which experience the effects of the aerodrome and the harbour.

Perhaps the exceedences (SO2 overall against WHO standards and NOx in the Songhees against CRD standards) which were encountered (SO2 3% of the time, and NOx once), provide a cap for responsible levels of pollutants. However, when we add in the NOx from the helicopters and the float planes, we may have a situation which demands mitigating action. And when we consider VOCs and add in the concrete canyon affects...

It may not be as bad as many feared – but what can be done?

Ongoing monitoring to detect changes over time and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions seems timely. Policy changes could include enforcement of the anti-idling bylaw and the elimination of cruise ship idling in port by connections to shore power.

The preliminary air quality study reports are being examined by officials from the Vancouver Island Health Authority and other health experts before final release. The JBNA will continue to monitor activities and push for comprehensive VOC studies.