Surrey metal plant, Metro seek judicial review of air-quality decision<\/p>\n
Published 1:30 pm Thursday, June 11, 2026<\/p>\n
Metro Vancouver and the owners of a South Surrey galvanizing plant are seeking a judicial review of a March 27, 2026 decision by the Environmental Appeal Board regarding an air-emissions permit issued to the plant nearly a decade ago, as well as a pair of subsequent amendments.<\/p>\n
The step is the latest in a process involving a group of area residents, non-profit societies, an association and two companies that brought 19 appeals of the permit \u2013 which authorized the annual discharge of 3.7 tonnes of contaminants \u2013 to Metro Vancouver, submitting, among other things, that the permit did not adequately protect human health and the environment, and asking the EAB to reverse the then-district director\u2019s decision to authorize it.<\/p>\n
The EAB panel held an 18-week oral hearing that got underway in 2019<\/a> and stretched over four years and also received written submissions that concluded in April 2024. The panel heard from residents who attributed health issues to the 18699 25 Ave. plant\u2019s operations and questioned Metro officials on matters such as emissions-monitoring; witnesses for Metro Vancouver who testified the facility was a \u201crelatively small emitter\u201d; that the regulatory process that surrounded the permit was \u201cunusual,\u201d in the sense it involved both a temporary approval and a stay, among many other points.<\/p>\n Appellant submissions \u2013 according to the EAB decision document \u2013 were made by Brookswood Fernridge Community Association, Nicomekl Enhancement Society, Little Campbell Watershed Society, Semiahmoo Fish and Game Club, Bill Ridge, Sonja Kroecher, Frank Mueggenburg, Gabriel Farms Ltd., Irongait Ventures Inc., and Carl and Inge Thielemann.<\/p>\n According to the judicial-review petitions filed in B.C. Supreme Court on May 26, 2026 on behalf of Ebco Metal Finishing LP and Metro\u2019s district director, the EAB \u2013 in its 182-page <\/a>decision<\/a>, released two years after the hearing\u2019s conclusion \u2013 found the approach to the permit by Metro\u2019s then-director was \u201cgenerally sound\u201d; also, that it did not accept much of the appellant group\u2019s evidence or submissions, finding \u201cthe appellants have not established that the Facility has caused any pollution, or that the Permit allows it to do so in practice\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n The permit set concentration limits for six contaminants \u2013 including zinc and nickel \u2013 that Ebco was authorized to release from two sources, as well as a concentration limit for the emission of sulphuric acid from a third source. It also mandated stack testing for two of those three sources.<\/p>\n In its decision, the EAB also cited concerns, including with \u201csignificant deficiencies\u201d in Ebco\u2019s stack test methodology, for \u201cunderstanding the weight of steel dipped at any specific point in time\u201d; and, instances where ambient air-quality standards had been exceeded. It found \u201cfurther, better evidence to be necessary to address the questions of what emissions are being produced,\u201d and \u2013 according to Metro\u2019s petition \u2013 issued \u201chighly prescriptive directions\u201d in deciding the district director must reconsider the 15-year permit issued in 2018, as well as the 2020 amendment, \u201cincluding whether the Permit should stand, be amended or cancelled.\u201d<\/p>\n These directions, Metro\u2019s petition contends, \u201cwere issued without first providing the District Director with an opportunity to provide evidence and submissions on their content, in breach of the EAB\u2019s procedural fairness obligations, and are otherwise unreasonable.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe Directions are complex, at times ambiguous and difficult to comprehend, and unsupported by the EAB\u2019s lengthy Decision,\u201d it continues.<\/p>\n The Ebco petition expressed similar concerns, maintaining \u201cthere was no basis for warranting the rescission or variation of the Permit,\u201d and describing the decision to \u201cfundamentally change\u201d testing protocol required for the permit without submissions, evidence or notice as \u201cmanifestly unfair.\u201d<\/p>\n Both Metro and Ebco are seeking orders including a stay on the five requirements of the decision until the judicial review is decided; as well as a reopening of the appeal.<\/p>\n Ebco relocated to South Surrey from Richmond in 2016 and was granted a temporary permit that allowed the facility to operate while conducting testing to inform air-dispersion modelling.<\/p>\n Following an appeal of that 2016 approval, the EAB granted a partial stay of the permit, only allowing Ebco to discharge air contaminants to obtain the measurements required for the dispersion modelling and other conditions.<\/p>\n The 2018 permit \u2013 issued after a \u201csignificant review\u201d of the modelling plan and report \u2013 also required stack testing for compliance purposes.<\/p>\n The 2020 amendment added another source, reduced the maximum allowable concentration of certain air contaminants, reduced the allowable hours of emissions and added thallium to stack testing requirements.<\/p>\n The emissions volumes in the 2020 permit \u201cwere the lowest of any air emission permit in Metro Vancouver where baghouses were used as emissions control when the 2020 Permit became effective,\u201d Metro\u2019s petition notes.<\/p>\n Respondents have 21 days from the date of being served the petitions to file and serve a response. As of Thursday (June 11), neither of the court files had been updated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Surrey metal plant, Metro seek judicial review of air-quality decision Published 1:30 pm Thursday, June 11, 2026 Metro…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":731587,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[194299],"tags":[49,48,87674],"class_list":["post-731762","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-surrey","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-surrey"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/731762","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=731762"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/731762\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/731587"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=731762"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=731762"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=731762"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}