by Alice Chambers
Perched on the banks of the Winnipeg River, immediately upstream of Sakgeeng First Nation Reserve in Manitoba, the Pine Falls mill is the oldest pulp mill on the prairies and it shows. The mill opened in 1927 and since that time there have been concerns over resource use, corporate behaviour, regulation and enforcement. This article briefly outlines the resource use and corporate behaviour issues and looks in some detail at the regulatory and enforcement situations.
Resource Use
Since 1927, there has been controversy over the ability of local forests to sustain the mill. Many areas of the province have been tapped to supply softwood for the 500 tonne per day mill. Resource extraction is allowed within provincial parks in Manitoba and three are fibre sources for the mill. Nopiming Provincial Park, the most heavily exploited, is home to Manitoba's most southerly woodland caribou herd, of about 55 animals. Currently recommended for endangered status in Manitoba, woodland caribou used to range into Minnesota.
Corporate Behaviour
People from neighbouring Aboriginal communities get seasonal, small logging and tree planting jobs, but not high paying mill and woodlands jobs. They also receive, according to a 1993 quote by Eric Boyd, then of Sakgeeng First Nation Lands Department, "… the dumping of large amounts of poisons into the community of Sakgeeng's water." Ownership of, and whether Sakgeeng First Nation was ever compensated for, the land on which the mill sits is still in question. The people whose lives, livelihoods and traditional lands have been most directly affected have received the least benefits.
Another example is the current effort by mill owners, Tembec, to obtain Navigable Waters permits for nearly 20 bridges built without permits. The un-permitted bridges were discovered when the Coast Guard was questioned about a controversial and dangerous bridge in Nopiming Park. It is too late to assess fisheries damages and it appears no charges will be laid.
Environmental Regulation And Enforcement
Mill power comes from a nearby hydro dam and from burning an average of 241 tonnes of coal plus 50-60 tonnes of bark/wood wastes per day. No electrostatic precipitators control emissions from the burners, just dust collector systems. The 1977 air emissions licence, which had its limits raised twice under appeal from the mill, is still in effect. The permit limits on sulphur dioxide and particulate matter exceed comparable limits from other provinces at that time and certainly do not reflect current understanding of these pollutants.
A long, well documented history of this license exists, showing on-going concerns from regulatory authorities about limits being too high, and about the mill pushing for higher limits although it was unclear that they planned to meet those permissive levels. Despite this, the limits were raised by pro provincial ministers. Even worse, no emissions compliance results have been submitted to the province since the early 1980s, because the air permit has no reporting requirement. During a recent environmental licencing process, the mill management specifically fought, and successfully appealed, inclusion of air emissions in their environmental licence.
Pine Falls operated without an environmental licence until 1996. Despite extensive public demand, there was no public hearing. Public scrutiny certainly was warranted.
Effluent
Unlike the mill at The Pas in northwestern Manitoba, which has had an effluent treatment system since 1979, the mill at Pine Falls did not have an effluent treatment system in place until December, 1995 – just in time to fulfill the legal obligations of the federal Pulp & Paper Liquid Effluent Regulations (PPLER). The mill received 2 transitional authorizations in order to keep operating until 31 December 1995 without a treatment system. The effluent treatment plant has no spill pond, which, according to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, all mills should have to prevent accidental spills during emergency situations.
During the unlicensed period there were numerous spills. Only once were charges laid. An unreported spill (828 kg of the fungicide Busan 52) in March 1994 caused Environment Canada to take Pine Falls to court. The company plead guilty and was fined $50,000. There were no provincial charges.
Of the many intolerable aspects of the spill, perhaps worst was that a Department of Fisheries and Oceans study, available to mill management, showed that the effluent plume would enter the drinking water inlet for Fort Alexander. Fort Alexander's citizens had long voiced concerns to the mill about the quality of their drinking water. Neither they, nor the Sagkeeng Nation, also dependant on the river for drinking water, were notified for four days. Toxic chemicals in the water, the condition of fish, and rashes from swimming in the river continue to concern local residents
Sludge
The mill now has a de-inking plant and two paper machines. A new land fill site was required for the de-inking and effluent treatment sludge. No pub public environmental assessment of this private landfill site took place. About 200 tonnes of sludge are deposited there per day. The landfill proposal estimated that odour would not be a problem, yet there have been ongoing complaints, even from across the Winnipeg River. There has also been much controversy about proposals for land spreading of the sludges.
Environmental Monitoring
Pine Falls appears to be the only mill in Canada that failed to submit an acceptable Cycle 1 study report for Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM). The EEM is a requirement for all mills under the PPLER, a part of the federal Fisheries Act. The idea was to design and implement monitoring plans that would start before the installation of new treatment plants and document incremental changes in water quality, habitat, species health and composition over time. Through legal and political manoeuvring, Pine Falls has evaded that goal and it is impossible to go back in time. Into the spring of 1997, Pine Falls argued that they should not be subject to PPLER, as their effluent "improved the quality of the Winnipeg River." Many studies and Pine Fall's own Environmental Impact Statement counter this claim.
The technical critique of Pine Falls' Cycle 1 EEM submission was scathing. It included statements like, "Much of PFPCs effort and focus was consumed by the non-productive task of providing reasons why they should not be required to participate in the EEM process, instead of designing and conducting a field program and analyzing the data and interpreting its results to meet the requirements outlined in the various EEM publications. Many of their arguments were based on data incorrectly collected, and analysed, or by simplifying complex ecological interactions down to one or two species, wherever it suited their arguments."
Despite this history of pollution and non-cooperation, local citizens have not been able to get enforcement action against Pine Falls. Environment Canada responded to questions about charges against PFPC for their clear violation of the EEM requirements by saying, " It was felt that a lengthy legal process would be unlikely to succeed and would be a poor use of taxpayers money." Regardless of the innovative nature of the EEM, all the other pulp mills in Canada managed to complete Cycle 1. Operators like Pine Falls, who willfully try to evade their responsibilities, need to have enforcement action levelled against them. There is no level playing field for industry when a company that chooses to ignore the law receives no penalty.
Situations like these give context to recent critiques of monitoring and enforcement of environmental legislation in Canada. Reports by both the House of Commons Standing Commit tee on Environment and Sustainable Development and by Brian Emmett, Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development contain serious examples of inadequacy and call for major improvements.
The Future For Pine Falls
Tembec plans to build a new Thermo Mechanical Pulp mill, and one or two, one million board-feet sawmills and a world-class Oriented Strand Board plant. All are to be supplied by slow growing public forests. Currently, Pine Falls is negotiating an enlarged forest management licence, including wilderness rivers on Lake Winnipeg's east side, an extended all weather road along the east side, and a bridge over the Bloodvein River. The Bloodvein is a Canadian Heritage River, nominated for its unique ecological and wilderness values. Given past performance, the hope for public inclusion in this process is not high.
The Aboriginal people should participate in the allocation and management of these public forests. The general public, too, should have input on the plans of this historical polluter. However, negotiations are between Tembec and the politicians. The public is promised input at the environmental assessment review stage. Decisions will have already been made and the difficulty of changing them after the fact has been demonstrated.
This is simply not acceptable. Readers are urged to write Christine Stewart, Minister of Environment Canada, and David Anderson, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, [House of Commons , Ottawa K1A 0A6] to ask that all environmental protection legislation be monitored and enforced. Public access to the process must be assured. Lack of funds should not be a deterrent to enforcement. Canada finds money to charge other criminals, and must do so for those that break environmental laws.
* The Watershed Sentinel wishes to thank Jay Ritchlin, Director of Pollution Prevention Programs at Reach for Unbleached! for his assistance.
***
[From WS February/March 1999]