B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A U T IL IT IE S C O M M I S S I O N O R D ER N U M B E R G-84-98 SIXTH FLOOR, 900 HOWE STREET, BOX 250 a TELEPHONE: (604) 660-4700 VANCOUVER, B.C. V6Z 2N3 BC TOLL FREE: 1-800-663-1385 CANADA FACSIMILE: (604) 660-1102 IN THE MATTER OF the Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, Chapter 473 and An Application by an Intervenor for Reconsideration of the Commission’s Decision into the Application by West Kootenay Power Ltd. to Rebuild the No. 44 Transmission Line from Oliver to Osoyoos BEFORE: P. Ostergaard, Chair ) L.R. Barr, Deputy Chair ) September 23, 1998 O R D E R WHEREAS: A. On November 19, 1997, West Kootenay Power Ltd. (“WKP”) applied to the Commission, pursuant to Section 45 of the Utilities Commission Act (“the Act”), for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (“CPCN”) to rebuild the No. 44 Transmission Line from Oliver to Osoyoos to 138 kV standards on the existing right of way; and B. In June 1998, the Commission held a public hearing into WKP’s application, and on August 5, 1998 issued its Decision and Certificate and Public Convenience and Necessity No. C-13-98; and C. On September 11, 1998, Mr. Hans Karow, an Intervenor representing the Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (“CORE”, “the Applicant”), applied to the Commission for reconsideration of its August 5, 1998 Decision; and D. Under Section 99 of the Act, the Commission has considered the CORE Reconsideration Application, as submitted in Mr. Karow’s letters to the Commission of September 16 and 18, 1998 and attached as Appendix A, and has determined that the following actions are required. NOW THEREFORE the Commission orders as follows: 1. WKP and any Registered Intervenor in the WKP proceeding for a CPCN to rebuild its No. 44 Transmission Line, or any other affected party who wishes to comment on the CORE Reconsideration Application, is to file a written submission with the Commission Secretary and the Applicant at the addresses noted below, no later than Friday, October 2, 1998. . . ./2
2 Mr. Robert J. Pellatt Commission Secretary B.C. Utilities Commission Box 250, 600-900 Howe Street Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2N3 Fax: (604)660-1102 E-Mail: commission.secretary@bcuc.com Written submissions should address the following preliminary points: a. Should there be a reconsideration of the Decision by the Commission? b. If there is to be a reconsideration, should the Commission hear new evidence? 2. CORE is to file with the Commission Secretary, no later than Friday, October 9, 1998, a written reply to any written submissions received from Registered Intervenors or other parties. DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this 23rd day of September, 1998. Attachment ORDER/WKP-L#44 Karow RecnsdrB R I T IS H C O L U M B I A U T I L IT I E S C O M M I S S I ON O R D ER N U M B E R G-84-98 Mr. Hans Karow Coalition to Reduce Electropollution Site 32, Compartment 6, RR#1 Oliver, B.C. V6H 1T0 Fax: (250) 498-3135 E-Mail: core@vip.net BY ORDER Original signed by: Peter Ostergaard Chair
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 1 of 27 Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE) Hans Karow S32 / C6, RR # 1 Oliver, B.C., VOH 1T0 Tel./Fax: (250) 498-3135 BC Utility Commission Mr. R.J. Pellatt, Commission Secretary Sixth Floor, 900 Howe Street Vancouver, B.C., V6Z 2N3\ Fax : (604) 660-1102 VIA FAX cc: Mr. R. Hobbs, West Kootenay Power Ltd.Trail (via fax) September 16, 1998 Dear Mr. Pellatt, Re: West Kootenay Power Ltd. (WKP) Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Application (CPCN) to Rebuild the No. 44 Transmission Line (TL44) from Oliver to Osoyoos Appeal of the Commissions (BCUC) Decision in the above matter, dated August 5, 1998 and Request for Reconsideration of WKP TL 44 CPCN Application my letter dated September 11, 1998 Due to out of province commitments over the weekend and other circumstances I was not able to have my letter checked for mistakes, however I wanted to meet the deadline for my appeal. I kindly ask the Commission to accept the enclosed corrected version of my appeal dated September 11, 1998. No major changes or new argument-points have been added. I apologize for any inconvenience. (signed: Hans Karow)
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 2 of 27 Coalition to Reduce Electropollution (CORE) Hans Karow S32 / C6, RR # 1 Oliver, B.C., VOH 1T0 Tel./Fax: (250) 498-3135 BC Utility Commission Mr. R.J. Pellatt, Commission Secretary Sixth Floor, 900 Howe Street Vancouver, B.C., V6Z 2N3\ Fax : (604) 660-1102 VIA FAX cc: Mr. R. Hobbs, West Kootenay Power Ltd.Trail (via fax) Buryl Slack, Oliver Rick Winchester, Penticton Town of Osoyoos Town of Oliver Osoyoos Indian Band and other interested parties September 11, 1998 (corrected Sept.16/ 1998) Dear Mr. Pellatt, Re: West Kootenay Power Ltd. (WKP) Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Application (CPCN) to Rebuild the No. 44 Transmission Line (TL44) from Oliver to Osoyoos Appeal of the Commissions (BCUC) Decision in the above matter, dated August 5, 1998 and Request for Reconsideration of WKP TL44 CPCN Application Please accept the following as my arguments for my appeal to the Commission's Decision and for a Request for Reconsideration in the above matter. First I want to thank the Commission for granting an extension ( Friday, September 11, 1998) to me .
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 3 of 27 I REFERENCE Section 99 of the Utilities Commission Act (the Act) states: "The Commission may reconsider, vary or rescind a decision, order, rule or regulation made by it, and may rehear an application before deciding it". II REASONS Referring to my letter, July 17, 1998 1. As stated in my earlier letters ( June 10, in the public hearing, July 17,1998) WKP has not answered all my information requests, thus leaving grounds open for further arguments which could not be discussed and considered in the final argument, as well as in the Commission's decision. 2. Please make my July 17, 1998 letter a part of my Argument within this appeal, as a basis of reference for the following arguments ("I/IV, p1/1" meaning: Part I of IV, page 1, section 1 in my letter). 3. (I/IV, P2/4 Point 3) The list of all affected landowners and renters is still outstanding, it is very important that these affected landowners and renters have a clear picture as to what is involved with the rebuild TL44, not only regarding the routing but also regarding the EMF issue, which WKP, despite my steady request is withholding on purpose. The EMF issue will be discussed below, but also forms part of point 1 in this appeal. 4. (I/IV, P3/6, Point 7) Up to now WKP has still not satisfied my request for complete correspondence between the various authorities : Town of Oliver, Town of Osoyoos, Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MoTH), BC Tel and Osoyoos Indian Band. It has come to my attention, that after CORE has disseminated more information about the TL44 project and the consequences, Osoyoos Indian Band and the Village of Osoyoos regret that they did not take part at the hearing. I have expressly requested the Commission's office and Mr. Kevin Jones, WKP project manager, that these parties, as mentioned before, should be invited for cross-examination by the intervenors. Interested parties like Osoyoos Indian Band and Town of Osoyoos at the time before, and at the hearing, were not aware of the legal procedure, which is to be explained by the complexity of the Act and the improper and insufficient dissemination of facts by WKP. Earlier, the Town of Osoyoos has asked WKP to remove the substation for given reasons at that time , which argument later became part of the hearing without any representatives from the Town of Osoyoos for cross-examination; which I feel leaves grounds open for further discussion and arguments during the following application process. Osoyoos has not only expressed the reasons of the residential expansion in the core of the village, but also fear of EMFs. ( see Enclosure 2. : article in the Osoyoos Times, August 19/98; Enclosure 3. : Mayor Cooper's letter dated Sept.2,1998). 5. WKP and the Commission erred in the fact that - as both parties always claimed and recognize " that epidemiological research into the effects of EMF on human health is inconclusive" and "that the findings of both groups (the National Cancer Institute and the National Academy of Sciences [NCI/NAS]) are that the body of research to date has failed to establish a positive link between EMF and cancer".
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 4 of 27 5a. As I testified and argued in the hearing, NCI/NAS are not trustworthy and in my opinion have previously lied to the general public on various occasions. In my letter June 10, 1998, page 4/14, Q/A VII3) "I ask [WKP] to produce the specific texts and literature. I have stated in my earlier letters that EMF studies have been often misrepresented, which I would like to prove upon WKP's specific information referral [emphasis underlined now] and on page 12/14 I asked the Commission: "a) that WKP publicly and next to their Mission Statement declares their present stance towards the possible health hazards of EMFs with referral to certain studies or conclusions of scientific bodies to be named (added here: and identified by WKP) and b) the Commission publicity declares their present EMF position along with referral to specific studies or conclusions of the scientific bodies to be named " [emphasis underlined here]. Up to now WKP and the Commission have not provided the specific literature referral, but only named NCI/NAS, which two scientific groups have produced many reports. I expressly want to stress, by not naming the requested specific referrals the Commission and WKP has taken some important grounds for arguments away from CORE during the whole application process. I assume, that the Commission and WKP refer to: 1. the NCI, Linet Study, 1997 and 2. the NAS/NRC Report, 1996. As I have testified and argued before (see letter June 10, 1998, page 12/14, 2. paragraph, and hearing Transcript) the press releases and media statements (PR/MR) on safety are not reflected in the studies themselves, hence PR/MR are misinterpreting the actual findings (see Don Maisch, An Overview of Three Recent Studies, E-mail June 22, 1998, Exhibit # 37 and 38). Therefore it is an ERROR IN FACT, that WKP and the Commission holds the same EMF position as interpreted by NCI, NAS and NRC, which I strongly question. The Commission and WKP err to claim to say that "the body of research to date has failed to establish a positive link between EMF and cancer". 5b. Besides, as I argued in the hearing, there are evidences of positive links and non-cancerous adverse health affects. Therefore it is an ERROR IN FACT, that WKP and the Commission limit the EMF position only to cancer, as their choice of example, when there are many other health aspects to be considered. 5c. Because of WKP's and the Commission's present EMF position, the EMF issue argued by me during the application process has been not accepted and hence omitted, resulting in A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OR FACTS in case if the Commission and WKP would change their position due to new scientific conclusion, as follows in the next section.
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 5 of 27 5d. Just recently, from June 16 - 24, 1998, the US Government National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Working Group have concluded that Extreme Low Frequency (ELF) EMFs are possible carcinogens to humans ("Class 2B", evaluation method of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which category includes formaldehyde, DDT, dioxins, and PCBs).[ Enclosure 1) : Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, NIH Publication No. 98-3981, also available at the NIEHS EMFRAPID Program : www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/home/htm 5e. Since the NIEHS report could not have been raised at the original proceeding and the report was made available shortly after BCUC decision, the NIEHS reports has resulted in a FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OR FACTS since the decision in question. I expect, that the NIEHS report would become the main evidence for the Commission and WKP to review their EMF stance and consider the EMF issue( as represented by me during the whole WKP TL44 CPCN application process, therefore the Commission is asked to reconsider and/or vary the decision. Since I believe that the EMF issue has such an great impact on the rebuild TL44, I ask the Commission to revisit WKP-TL44 CPCN Application and either reject, so the WKP Company can apply again, or open this one up again. 5f. CORE will inform the Commission about any new important findings within the scientific body of research, and the Commission is hereby asked to automatically review it's EMF position with respect to future electric utilities applications. 5g The organizational chart of the Commission ( A Participants' Guide to the BCUC, chapter 2, page 8, May 1997) shows at the bottom no advisory body for health (qualified industry and medical association independent EMF expert) and safety affairs, which would assist the Commission's decisions within both these issues. The Commission's due public responsibility and mission should be to err on the safe side, as long as there is no conclusive proof that EMFs are safe or not! A CLAIM OF ERROR IS SUBSTANTIATED ON A PRIMA FACIE BASIS, that the Commission although in discretion, but not qualified, decided to not fully recognize the potential dangerous EMF issue in the decision. Future liability will lie in the Commissions hands. Referring to the Transcript (T): 6. T page 140, line 19 to page 142 line 6: Mrs. Slack was asked by Mr. Hobbs (not Mr. Bernard, printing mistake, line 19, page 140) regarding a second line into Osoyoos. Mrs. Slack supports a second line for back up and reliability, and the present substation should not be left in the middle of the town, and "that there is no way Osoyoos would want it down their causeway, their motel row, their Pioneer Walkway. And if undergrounding would solve that--"(T 141, line 8 - 11)..." you would have to find a way of routing it through town that was acceptable to the people of Osoyoos, and if that was underground or a little bit round away..."(T 142, line 1 - 4). At this point (at the hearing) WKP never mentioned or admitted they already had buried conduits under the Pioneer Walkway. After the hearing this information was given by Mr. Kevin Jones to Mrs. Slack at a meeting in the Oliver WKP office. WKP neglected to mention the large conduit buried along and under Pioneer Walkway, this constitutes a sin of omission. It changes the cost of tap 9L and the view of routing.
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 6 of 27 7. As it is now -after the hearing and after the final argument- known, the Town of Osoyoos have -many times- asked WKP to move the substation (Osoyoos Mayor letter to the Commission, dated September 2, 1998). I add that the Oliver Mayor " became so angered that she refused to speak further to WKP." (pers. comm. to B. Slack, Sep.. 1, 1998). T page 97, line 12-14, Mr. Bernard omitted to agree, that there was discussion between WKP and the municipalities in the South Okanagan: I refer to the buried conduit and Osoyoos' request to move the substation. The Town of Osoyoos does want the substation relocated. The Osoyoos industrial lot was sold by the Town of Osoyoos to WKP for a substation. Moving the substation was a subject in the hearing by residents and intervenors, though not by the Town officially at that point. As demonstrated before, the Mayor of Osoyoos has asked ( see letter from Town of Osoyoos, Sept.2.,98) and WKP did not admit to knowledge of these requests under oath ( verbal or otherwise). Just Cause in my opinion is the Town of Osoyoos does want the substation moved, has made it clear to WKP prior to the hearing and as stated in T. and argument " why rebuild it in a wrong place or in a wrong way for another 60 years." As to consistency and predictability : - for example in evidence under oath Slack stated see T p 138 lines 4-12 and specifically lines 11 and 12 : " So you have to look forward more now, perhaps, than you've ever done." I feel the Commission would not want to set a backward example. T page 140, 19-26 when asking Slack, in case 43 Line was built as a second line into Osoyoos, Mr. Hobbs -representing WKP- admits: " ...that there would be incremental impacts both being aesthetic and EMF...". Sounds like slowly the industry and scientists publicly admit what they have long known. A CLAIM OF ERROR IS SUBSTANTIATED ON A PRIMA FACIE BASIS that WKP did not admit to knowledge of all the previous requests by the Town of Osoyoos to move the substation. If this is ignored, and in future a second line is seen as necessary the substation will be in the wrong place and compound the error (impacts, costs, etc.). 8. A CLAIM OF ERROR IS SUBSTANTIATED ON A PRIMA FACIE BASIS that WKP did not admit to knowledge that "proximity of power lines are causing property devaluation" (T page 44, 6-7), (nor did the Commission force WKP to reply). Bernard's title is "Customer Service Manager", and a general knowledge of all customer related concern is to be expected from him. 8a I refer to numerous letters also with copies to WKP where I mentioned about property devaluation cases due to EMFs with specific referral of literature and court cases. As WKP's customer service manager, Mr. Bernard should have been informed about the property devaluation issue, not just because of the EMF issue. Common sense tells that proximity of power lines reduce enjoyment of someone's property. Mr. Bernard knowingly avoided the answer. WKP is asked to read my letters again, which became part of the hearing and further investigate property devaluations elsewhere. I have not asked WKP and Bernard, whether they are real estate appraisers, they said they were not,
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 7 of 27 hence again: avoiding smartly the for WKP expensive devaluation issue. I refer the Commission and WKP to the Inquiry Reports of BC Hydro's 230 kV Transmission Line from Dunsmuir to Gold River (July 26, 1989) and the Undergrounding of the Overhead Transmission Lines along Boundary Road in the City of Vancouver ( May 26, 1995), in which property devaluation has become quite an issue at that time. Why is it, whenever BC Hydro(BCH) is applying for rebuild or new construction of a transmission line, BCH buys out affected properties before it comes to a court case. Reason: one successful court case would be a precedent for all cases in Canada resulting in tremendous expenses for all electric companies. 8b An Osoyoos qualified Realtor responded to a question, which of the two same condos would sell first, the one with a power line pole in front of the house or the one without? Answer: the condo without. An Oliver qualified Realtor responded to the same question the same way. The second question was, which one of two same condos in the same two- storey building would sell first, the lower condo with the pole (only) in front of the main window and no view, or the upper condo with the pole and transformer and a view? Answer: the lower condo with no view and no transformer will sell first. Both Realtors stated that people are willing to comparatively pay more for the same building without a hydro pole in front of the building. 8d Two important Florida EMF inverse condemnation lawsuits, beside others, successfully employed the impact of public fear on the market value of property: Florida Power and Light Company v. Jennings and Florida Power and Light v. Roberts. In both these lawsuits, realtors and appraisers testified that proximity to high-voltage power lines devalued property values. The cases were consolidated and ended up in the Supreme Court in 1987 (!), which held that "...impact of public fear [of EMF] on market value of property was admissible without independent proof of reasonableness of fear..." (source: Warning: The Electricity Around you May Be Hazardous to Your Health, Ellen Sugarman, 1992, page 182). 8e With the NIEHS report release (see above) and the now more increasing body of scientific evidence, that there are connections between EMFs and adverse health effects, aesthetic reasons, public perception, just fear, etc., presence of transmission lines restrict the numbers of potential buyers; pylons have never been viewed as a positive feature and have diminished the attractiveness of the area for nearby residents, ...there will follow more than enough to this list which have an adverse impact on property values. 8f The organizational chart of the Commission ( A Participants' Guide to the BCUC, chapter 2, page 8, May 1997) shows at the bottom no advisory body for consumer affairs (qualified appraisers), which would assist the Commission's in decision-makings within property devaluation issues. As with the health aspects, the Commission's due public responsibility and mission should be to err on the safe side, which refers also to property devaluation. In my letter, dated July13, 1998 with copy to WKP I recommended to the Commission a well recognized and independent property
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 8 of 27 devaluation expert, I assume that neither the Commission nor WKP took the effort to further look into this untested issue, hence still standing matter of the hearing. Referring to the Commission's Decision dated August 5, 1998 (CD): 9 page 7/paragraph 1 (CD p7/1): As mentioned before, BCUC should have known before the decision that conduit already had been installed. Because this fact was not known, hence not dealt with at the hearing, cost and routing would have been affected and not being the same, and my question is who has paid for the conduit installation? Information withheld resulting in significant material implications! 10 CD p8/3 : The Osoyoos Indian Band (OIB), not available for cross- examination at the hearing, restricted their prior authorization to WKP to construct a new line to only 60 kV capability (OIB letter dated July 14, 1998, Ex 44) We know that OIB has concerns about EMF related health risks, as has the Town of Osoyoos. Meaning, INFORMATION WITHHELD, despite CORE's steady request to have the general public and all affected parties sufficiently informed (about EMFs emanating from powerlines; EMFs have been known to be a controversial issue, but recently have been classified as 2B carcinogen to humans by NIEHS, etc.) THUS A BASIC PRINCIPLE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED in the hearing to the missing parties ( Towns of Osoyoos and Oliver, MoTH, OIB, BC. Tel). A hearing with all invited parties and affected people would have changed the outcome of the hearing results even more than happened now after OIB and Town of Osoyoos have submitted their late concern. 11 With letter to the Commission, dated Sept.10, 1998 (Enclosure 4.), School District 53 is also supporting the Town of Osoyoos letter (Sept.2, 1998), in which the relocation of the Osoyoos substation was requested for given reason. 12 Hereby it is expressly understood that I make the OIB letter ( dated July 14, 1998), the Town of Osoyoos letter (dated September 2, 1998) and School District 53 letter (dated September 10, 1998) part of my appeal, and hence they are part of the hearing. 13 CD p10, line 2-4: WKP mislead the Commission in transcript: it is not an exchange of ROW in exchange for access to the line. It is a license to farm/use the ROW at no charge for ten years in exchange for access to the line according to WKP Land Agent Dan Bachynski.The access goes on the title (as well as the ROW), and that is access to the ROW. This is not quite as represented to the Commission and formed part of the Decision, hence AN ERROR IN FACT. 14 CD p 12/ 2: The Commission has not been informed, that line 43 has access to BC Hydro, which means that a second line or a new line (instead of existing TL44) tap TL43 would increase reliability by far more, since the outages are blamed to WKP' own upstream lines (see Boatman letter).
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 9 of 27 15 CD p12/p3: Whatever the outcome of the present appeal and the Commission's final decision, I ask the Commission to hold WKP to the meetings with residents/owners and all affected groups as set out in T and CD, and agreed to by WKP. I expressly suggest to hold meetings and achieve consensus with all affected people together. My fear is that WKP will piecemeal with all affected parties and not all together in one group. 16 CD p 13/1: I stress, that all residents who are directly affected, are not only the ones at the Deadmans Lake section, lest WKP misinterpret. There are other trouble spots even more serious than at the Deadmans Lake section. It is up to the Commission to ensure that WKP has contacted and thoroughly informed all affected persons and has done so in good faith. 17 CD p13/2: I have yet to receive a copy of the Draft Acres Report, which I have not been able to testify about, hence still remaining open, which could - and will still -have a significant material implication. 18a CD p14/2 &3 :The Commission should also know, that high magnetic field from household appliances fall off down to near zero in a very short distance, i.e. a kitchen range's reading of 75mG at 10 cm can fall off to about 0 mG at 80 cm, whereas the proposed rebuild TL44's 16.46mG at 8.8 feet will fall off proportional to the distance. 18b WKP diagram (Ex.9) shows following reading of TL44: 16.46 milliGauss at 8.8 feet from the center line: (16.46mG/8.8'), 16mG/20', 10.5mG/40', 7.2mG/60', 4.8mG/80', 3.2mG/100', ...1.0mG/190', 0.5 mG/275'. 18c The ROW being 99 feet, from the center of ROW to each side leaves you 49.5 feet from the poles to the edge of the ROW. WKP's calculation read 3mgG at a horizontal distance of 100 feet from the bottom of the pole, meaning that adjacent residents and property owners still get readings from about 9.5 mG at the ROW/property border (0 feet) down to 3.0 mG for another 55.5 feet across their property. Add to these figures about 0.5 - 1.0 mG or more, where applicable, where TL44 will, as OIB letter, be "built alongside" 25 feet off the old (existing) route, or by any means any one closer to, and/or higher up, than on the horizontal ground level (base of the pole), will experience higher readings. 18d In my information request to WKP I asked for diagrams indicating strength of the maximum possible (not exceeding) Electric and Magnetic Fields within the distance from under the rebuild TL44 as far as where fields fall off to "zero" ( the most negligible reading), also specific for maximum demand of 63 kV and underbuild distribution lines. The diagrams were presented and amended during the hearing (Ex. 9). I like to note, that this diagram is not sufficient, it does not present the maximum readings. The Commission must know and WKP does not (want) disclose to the affected and interested people, that readings can be double the amount of a straight running TL44 section, where TL44 changes its direction with an 90 degree angle (De Melo resident and others).
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 10 of 27 Someone living in a house on the diagonal of the 90 degree directional changed run is exposed to following magnetic fields : 32.52mG at 12.4 feet (32.52mG/12.4'), 32mG/20', 21mG/56.6', 14.4mG/84.9', 9.6mG/113', 6.4mG/141.4'...2mG/268', 1mG/388.9'. 19 The same refers to the electric field readings, where electric fields - which can be easily shielded-emanating from power lines, are not obstructed by any objects. 20 WKP should be aware (but, for certain reason, do not want to talk about?), that people who live and enjoy property within 90 degree directional changed running TL44, are exposed to higher EMF-readings in the corner area - double the amount compared to readings from a straight section of same TL44! Hence AN ERROR IN FACT, A necessary FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCE OR FACT SINCE THE DECISION, A BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT HAD BEEN overlooked and thus NOT BEEN RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. THE ERROR IS SUBSTANTIATED ON A PRIMA FACIE BASIS; AND THE ERROR HAS SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL IMPLICATIONS. 21. At this time I personally would not want to live voluntarily or involuntarily with 0.5 milliGauss magnetic field exposure coming from utility' facilities 24 hours a day year-round, as long as there is no scientific conclusive proof that EMFs down to 0.1 milliGauss are safe! Mr. Gallagher, expert, Commission witness on EMF and cancer, did state :" I will never be able to tell you EMF is safe" and that he considers high fields as "consistently exposed to 3.0 mG and up" (T). 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0 mG used as a cut-off point in studies does not at all mean that these figures are a safety threshold. As the EMF exposures not only have negative bio-effects but can also restrict the enjoyment of someone's property; and as has already shown in other countries, property devaluation court cases have successfully been fought by the affected owners. 22 Utilities' appliance -EMF exposures are involuntarily and without knowledge of most of the affected people, this refers also to house hold appliance EMF exposure. In time people will get more informed and educate themselves and they can use prudent avoidance with their own electric appliances. However, EMFs from transmission and distribution lines can not be avoided and this constitutes an intrusion in the right of a person's privacy, which is protected by various laws, i.e. UN Declaration of Human Right and the Nuremberg Code ( Ex. 26 ). 22a The Commission's duty also includes approving of applications for CPCN and making "...regulations requiring a public utility to conduct its operations in a way that does not necessarily interfere with, or cause necessary damage or inconvenience to, the public..."(Act, Section 28.2). 22b The Universal Declaration of Human Right (adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly, Dec. 10, 1948) reads in Article 3: "Everyone has the right of life, liberty and security of person".
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 11 of 27 22c In the BCUC's 1989 Dunsmuir-Gold River Inquiry report, page 16, Dr. Marino Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cellular Biology and Anatomy at the Louisiana State University Medical Center gave expert testimony on behalf of the Comox Valley Rerouting Committee. He "...also stated that it is unlikely ever to have absolute proof that magnetic fields cause cancer. Rather, magnetic fields are risk factors for cancer in the same way that smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer. Dr. Marino is of the opinion also that exposing individuals involuntarily to 60 Hz electromagnetic fields from power transmission lines such as the new 230 kV B.C. Hydro line constitutes involuntary human experimentation if permission is not provided by the affected people." In my letters to BCUC I have referred to the Nuremberg Code, which was also meant by Dr. Marino, when he mentioned : "involuntary human experimentation". The Nuremberg Code is a 10 point-declaration governing humane experimentation. This code states that voluntary and informed consent is absolutely essential at all times. 23 Mrs. Slack, Final Argument, July 11, 1998, Part II, p. 9/10: Referring to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) book ( Ex. 19), Mr. Godfrey in cross by Slack (T.) recognizes "BPA as a respected sister Utility (Big Sister). BPA does inform users of their R/W re EMF and limits some uses because of the perception" (Ex.19, p.5-9). However, it seems to me that the Commission has not taken into consideration the BPA book, as referred to in the hearing, in the decision. In the Sale Hearing transcript (Kelowna) it is understood that the BCUC cannot "see" across the border, therefore my question how can the Commission ignore BPA information yet "see" NCI/NAS? 24 CD14/5: Here again WKP is down-playing the EMF issue by stating "that the loading on the line would be about one-third of capacity, so the magnetic field would be reduced commensurately...". Affected people have the right to know the full truth. 25 CD17/1 My argument that "EMF studies have been often misrepresented", which I have referred to specified resources has so far up to- date not been disputed-with specific referral- either by WKP nor by the Commission. All my EMF statements are based on facts, not on fiction. CORE , affiliated and in daily contact with many EMF organizations around the world is very careful to not downplay, generalize or overemphasize the EMF issue. CORE's commitment is to pass unbiased, unflawed information. CORE is open for any arguments, and willing to change it's own position upon satisfactory proof from both sides of the controversial EMF-issue. CORE is always seeking and maintaining contact to both sides of the controversial issue. 26 CD17/3: My request still stands asking" the Commission to revisit WKPTL44 CPCN Application and either reject, so the company can apply again, or open this up again, with all sufficient information available to all intervenors and necessary witnesses on hand, and public hearings handled in a more timely manner so the public can be involved and take part as much as possible." 27 CD17/4, line 9,10&11: In my opinion WKP has not informed the Commission correctly. My own magnetic field testing resulted in my conclusion that the readings within and at the far end of the Osoyoos Nursery School do not show "that the substation's influence could not be distinguished
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 12 of 27 from the fields created from the nursery school's power consumption." Several times I asked WKP for all their readings, which up to-date I have not received. If testing results were satisfactory to the school's management and parents, why is WKP not passing this information to me? Hereby the statement in these lines are disputed and I assume WKP to be wrong. HENCE AN ERROR IN FACT, WHICH may have significant MATERIAL IMPLICATIONS. 28 CD18/1: Also referring to point 8f in my appeal, I kindly ask the Commission how they feel qualified to "digest" and finally draw conclusions on information the Commission's office receives. Earlier I stated that the findings of the scientific bodies the Commission leans on , are not trust worthy, as long as the Commission or any other independent and respected EMF expert can testify to the honesty of other research bodies (a Mexican stand-off). So far I have argued, that NCI/NAS, the Commission refers to, are not well respected and trustworthy. Hence, any recommendations on biased conclusions of any agency may cause AN ERROR IN FACT, resulting in SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS. 29 CD18/2: The statement :"At the boundary of the 99 foot ROW, milliGauss readings are normally expected to be less than 2.5 mG", is not correct and contradictory with the Commission's statement on page 14, CD. The readings at the edge of ROW, meaning 49.5 feet off the center line can reach up to +/- 9.5mG instead of 2.5 mG.(see WKP diagram, Ex.9). "A house located 30 feet from the 44Line ROW would typically have reading less than 1.4 mG" is also not correct , the reading at 30 feet from the Line 44 ROW or 30+49.5= 79.5 feet would be 7.2 mG. AN ERROR IN FACT WHICH HAS SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL IMPLICATIONS. The Commission also errs in stating in the same paragraph "Magnetic fields of 2 to 2.5 mG tend to be within the range of acceptable safety limits for those scientists and others who support such limits". I repeat, Mr. Gallagher, expert, Commission witness on EMF and cancer, did state :" I will never be able to tell you EMF is safe" and that he considers high fields as "consistently exposed to 3.0 mG and up" (T). As I stated earlier in my appeal, 2, 2.5 or 3.0 mG is just a cut off point for tests, not a safety threshold. The general public should not be mislead. As much as "the body of research has failed to establish a positive link between EMF and cancer" (BCUC Letter No. L-11-98), as much has the body of research proved evidence more and more recently, that there are connections between EMFs and - not only- cancer, but also non-cancerous adverse health effects. The general public should be presented the findings from both sides of the controversial EMF issue and then decide about applications like WKP TL 44.
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 13 of 27 30 CD 18/2, last sentence: It does not matter how far the dwellings are from center of ROW, owners and renters pay taxes and rent respectively and with the proximity of power lines the enjoyment of the property is reduced, therefore the property is devaluated. Houses do not have to set back 30 feet of ROW. Depending on Zoning in our regional district and municipality the set back may be anywhere from 0 - 6 meter or more. 31 CD 18/4, Commissions conclusion: I never asked as an intervenor that the Oliver substation should be moved. I only used the readings from the nearby residences as an example for milliGauss in proximity to the substation. 32 The Commission is asked to require the relocation of the Osoyoos substation also on the basis of exposures to electromagnetic fields. 33 As I have reasoned before (see point 18d my appeal), readings from transmission lines and/or distribution lines running in an angle are misinterpreted. Depending upon the current (measured in amperes) and the angle of the directional change of the power lines run, EMFs are compounding perpendicular from each side of the power line section. This is the case also with the nursery school in Osoyoos, which needs further investigation. 34. CD 19/ re Commission's conditions: In case the Commission does not rescind - or only part of the August 5, 1998 decision, I expect the BCUC to hold WKP to all the conditions mentioned in page 19, and I ask for all copies of information and correspondence WKP is sending to the Commission. 35 Furthermore I would like to be notified about WKP's consultation with the stakeholders and other affected groups as stated elsewhere in my appeal. If WKP feels more comfortable, I don't mind to attend these meetings and consultation as an independent observer. 36 In the public interest, I suggest that in future the Commission gives legal information with reference to the Act for appealing any decisions and/or orders and that the legal information is included as an appendix either on the end or on a special page. Not everyone, who deals with the Commission, is a lawyer. The people have a right to know, never mind whether they are ignorant of the proper procedure. Legal decisions or orders should be accompanied with legal advice and referral to the relevant legal act. 37 From the experience I gained during the WKP TL44 CNPC application I suggest, that any future applications should be advertised more than sufficient in a way, that possible affected people or groups get their attention drawn to the application. I suggest providing more detailed information in the news media more frequently, so the public can find out, whether someone might be affected or not (like Mr. Pellatt did regarding the hearing and the meeting). Open workshops with everyone interested will relieve an application and hearing process very much rather then having only selected individuals or groups in closed forums, and save time and temper in the final analysis. 38 Another reason, why the substation should be relocated, are the PCB containing transformers. If the sealed oil-tight casing gets ruptured, either by internal overload or external accident, a PCB-hazard can occur. PCB's were found to be toxic (class 2B carcinogen, like EMF, see NIEHS
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 14 of 27 Working Group Report), any spill could seriously contaminate the surrounding area, including the nursery school ground, the ground water, which is not far away from the lake, as well as any domestic well water coming from the area near the transformers. Substations should be kept isolated from susceptible areas such as school grounds, residential area and from any body of water. Substations with PCB containers should be sited more remotely from these areas and with containment walls and liners/membranes and notices prominently displayed to warn fire persons or other bodies of the danger in the event of rupture. Any transformers sited within built up areas should be originally filled with non- PCB oil. (signature) Hans Karow Enclosure 1.): re: NIEHS Working Group report, 4 pages Enclosure 2.): Osoyoos Times article, August 19/98, 1 page Enclosure 3.): Osoyoos Mayor Cooper's letter, September 2, 1998, 3 pages Enclosure 4.): School District 53 letter, September 10., 1998, 1 page
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 15 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 16 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 17 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 18 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 19 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 20 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 21 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 22 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 23 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 24 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 25 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 26 of 27
APPENDIX A to Order No. G-84-98 Page 27 of 27
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.