On November 25, B.C.'s environmental assessment (EA) commission will rule on whether an environmental assessment certificate issued a decade ago for construction of the Prince Rupert Gas pipeline, should require a new, updated EA certificate before proceeding.
The project proposes construction of an 800-kilometre pipeline to transport gas from northeast B.C. to the Ksi Lisims LNG plant near the mouth of the Nass River on the province’s northwest coast.
Originally owned by TC Energy, this pipeline project never got off the ground and was purchased by the Nisga’a Nation and Texas-based Western LNG in March 2024. In the absence of demonstrating “substantive progress” in project development – something the new proponents are scrambling to do – the EA would automatically expire next month.
EAs are required by the B.C. government to “assess potential environmental, social, economic, health and cultural effects” on any major industrial development before an EA certificate is granted to proceed.
The 10-year sunset clause requirement on EAs for projects not well underway by this time is an acknowledgment that environments change over time, as does the scientific evidence informing protection of the environment and human health.
As physicians and environmental health scientists, we are calling for a new environmental assessment before this project proceeds precisely due to both significant changes in the context of pipeline construction and important new evidence that must be assessed.
First let's talk about air pollution.
Ten years ago, the impacts of air pollution on human health were less well known. There is now a substantial and growing body of evidence demonstrating an association of air pollutants with harmful respiratory, cardiovascular, birth and neurological outcomes, including dementia and increased mortality. There are also bolstered safety regulations to protect people's health.
The predicted air pollution levels for the PRGT project would no longer be considered safe today. The project's estimated NO2 emissions exceed the current safety standard, and in some cases double that. Ground-level ozone – a powerful respiratory toxicant for which there is no safe level – wasn’t even assessed in 2014 but is now strictly regulated.
The regional context has also changed. Ten years ago, there was less air pollution in the Prince Rupert airshed. Today, air pollution levels in the area are chronically at a level yellow or “moderate” for PM2.5. Oil and gas developments, such as the Coastal Gaslink pipeline, LNG Canada export facility, Cedar LNG, and AltaGas Ridley Island Propane Export Terminal, have sprung up.
More frequent and severe wildfires contribute to poorer air quality. People living in northern B.C. already have higher rates of respiratory disease compared to the rest of the province and are therefore, potentially more vulnerable to the health impacts of an additional source of air pollution.
Ten years ago, environmental racism was barely understood. Fast-forward to earlier this year, when Bill C-226, the National Strategy of Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice Act, was adopted by the Canadian government. An updated EA is needed to address the potential for disproportionately higher exposure and greater health harms of such projects to communities already facing structural disadvantages, including Indigenous, rural and remote communities, and communities with high levels of income insecurity.
The World Health Organization has identified climate change as a major threat to human health. In 2014, people in B.C. had no lived experience of back-to-back heat domes, atmospheric rivers, drought and severe wildfires – events that are now becoming increasingly frequent. Ten years ago, we did not understand how fracked methane gas extraction was worse than coal, due to its impact on atmospheric warming. At that time, there was also no expectation for project EAs to address their influence on provincial targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction, something that is now a requirement.
Allowing the Prince Rupert Gas pipeline project to proceed in the absence of a new EA would be disingenuous, risks significant health harms, and disrespects the spirit of the 10-year time limit built into B.C.’s EA regulations.
Dr Margaret McGregor, MD, CCFP, MHSc: clinical associate professor, UBC Dept of Family Practice; Faculty of Medicine; Core faculty, Centre for Clinical Epidemiology at Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute.
Dr Melissa Lem, MD, CCFP; clinical assistant professor UBC Dept of Family Practice, Faculty of Medicine; President of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
Dr Tim Takaro, MD, MPH, MSc; professor emeritus; occupational and environmental medicine, public health and toxicology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
Comments