Howe Sound Denied Coal Permit

by Rob Wiltzen

The residents and communities of the Sea-to-Sky region are celebrating a recent decision by the BC government following months of vocal opposition to a plan that promised to introduce a raft of new emissions to their airshed.  

The use of coal in the Port Mellon pulp mill of Howe Sound was firmly blocked by the BC Ministry ofEnvironment when they issued a permit amendment for the air emissions of the mill on December 21, 2007.  

The new permit comes on the heels of coal burning ‘trials’ by the mill over a number of months last year that aimed to demonstrate emission improvements. The mill’s power boiler, as with other coastal pulp mills, runs on salty hog fuel – bark and wood waste from logs that are stored and transported in the ocean, resulting in salt absorption by the wood. The case for burning coal was predicated on financial grounds as a cheaper alternative than natural gas, and as promoting a more efficient burn of the wet wood and thus fewer emissions of dioxins and other harmful emissions. It is well accepted, however, that the burning of coal results in higher emissions for a number of other harmful substances, such as particulate matter, greenhouse gases, sulphur dioxide and heavy metals. 

Increases in lead, mercury, arsenic, thallium 

A 2005 consultant’s report on coal burning in pulp mills, prepared for the government in relation to the coal burning trials at the Elk Falls mill in Campbell River, states that the burning of coal showed highly variable but statistically significant increases in emissions of lead, mercury and thallium as well as arsenic — all of which are extremely toxic to humans and other living creatures. 

A recent study by the federal government also found that airborne mercury emissions had a discernable impact on mercury cycling in nearby water bodies. What becomes clear is that the heavy metals from coal-burning end up not only drifting across the playgrounds of nearby communities, but also make their way back to the dinner table through the aquatic food chain. 

Whether including coal in the fuel mixture actually does reduce dioxin emissions remains open to debate. The data from the Howe Sound coal trials indicated lower dioxins emissions but the same 2005 consultant’s report concluded that coal burning did not reduce dioxins. 

The ministry decision has not been met with quiet acquiescence, however. The mill immediately launched an appeal and publicly stated their intentions to pursue coal burning. Concerns of surrounding communities notwithstanding, the mill is intent upon their agenda of becoming the second pulp coastal pulp mill to introduce coal to their fuel mix. The Elk Falls mill of Campbell River negotiated a permit amendment in 2006 to allow coal burning in the power boiler over the avid opposition of environmental groups, the local native community of Cape Mudge and other surrounding communities. 

The new permit also reduces the limit for particulate matter to 160 mg per cubic metre from 230 mg and introduces a new hourly average limit for sulphur dioxide. While the daily average for sulphur dioxide remains at the previous level of 300 mg per cubic metre, the institution of an hourly average limit is designed to help avoid the spikes of high emissions that can be disguised in average limits over longer periods. Both particulate matter and sulphur dioxide emissions are closely associated with the burning of coal. 

Commendable permit changes 

The ministry should be congratulated in this case, an especially commendable feat in the absence of legislation regulating air emissions from pulp mills. Where there should be clear limits in place for air emission of such severely harmful substances as arsenic, mercury and thallium, there is a complete vacuum. Where there could be policy leadership and a legislative context for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there is empty rhetoric and vague intention. Ministry staff have the unenviable task of negotiating permits with industrial facilities outside the context of supporting legislation or policy frameworks that would guide decision making. 

Permits vary wildly across province 

Permits for pulp mills in the province reflect the lack of policy cohesion and are wildly varying in both their limits and in what is included in permits. While there may be some justification on the basis of differences between individual operations and facilities, the lack of consistency extends to issues that are common to the nature of pulp mills, such as emissions from bleaching plants and types of fuel allowed in power boilers. 

The permit rewrite for the Catalyst Crofton pulp mill last year contained a very tight definition of what was allowable woodwaste, excluding any treated, painted, coated or contaminated wood. The exclusions address concerns over the receipt and incineration of demolition waste and other waste streams that could be loosely categorized as ‘wood waste’ in the power boilers of pulp mills. Other pulp mills, including the newly issued permit for Elk Falls, contain no such definition however. Clear policy and its application in provincial permit granting would avoid such glaring inconsistencies and provide a level playing field for industry. 

Fuel by default 

The coal trials at Port Mellon were allowed simply because they were not explicitly disallowed in the air permit for the mill, as they would be under some of the other permits issued for pulp mills in BC. Until such time as there is some clear legislative leadership over the air emissions of industrial facilities, it is hit and miss when it comes to ministry response on plans that will severely impact the quality and quantity of toxic emissions. 

This decision is both a welcome one and a key factor in reversing what threatened to become a province wide trend that flies in the face of recent commitments to address the growing threat of climate change. There is no word yet on the timing of the appeal process and a final decision by the Environmental Appeal Board. The Board has ruled that the mill may not continue to burn coal while it waits for the appeal process. 

It can only be hoped that the ministry sticks to its guns on saying no to coal at the Port Mellon mill. 

***

Millwatch has been re- porting on the issue of pulp mills burning coal since November 2003.

[From WS March/April 2008]

Become a supporter of independent media today!

We can’t do it without you. When you support independent reporting, every donation makes a big difference. We’re honoured to accept all contributions, and we use them wisely. Our supporters fund untold stories, new writers, wider distribution of information, and bonus copies to colleges and libraries. Donate $50 or more, and we will publicly thank you in our magazine. Regardless of the amount, we always thank you from the bottom of our hearts.