MillWatch #44 - November/December 2003

MillWatch is sponsored by Reach for Unbleached! Canada to connect people and provide resources for those working on pulp and paper issues. If you have information, experience, or problems you want to share, this forum is meant to spread the word, but it needs your help. Write to us!

Crofton pulp mill has devised an impressive follow up to the spectacular success of its sister mill in Campbell River with burning coal. Readers of the Watershed Sentinel may recall that that mill declared coal a win-win situation (they win and they win again) after it revealed to the pulp and mining town that burning coal actually decreased most pollutants (See "Mill Praises Coal as Clean Fuel," Watershed Sentinel, October/November 2002). The "purity tests" relied on by the mill were declared incomplete at best and misleading at worst by both environmental critics and the consultant hired to review them for the Campbell River City council.

That didn't stop the Norske Canada giant from declaring victory nor stop BC's pollution bureaucrats from okaying some but not all of the mill's demands for expanded coal burning.

Now the Crofton mill is relying on those same tests to justify its request to burn coal, tires, and treated railway ties. As well as the discredited Elk Falls tests, the Crofton mill cites "tests" on burning tires in Port Alberni and Powell River. One thing is clear: the mills feel these fuels require a lot of testing.

Each of these issues has its specific circumstances. Elk Falls No. 5 Power boiler, which is mandated for coal, has installed the only wet electrostatic precipitator on the coast. Coincidentally, a wet electrostatic precipitator is the pollution control device of choice for coal. Port Alberni started burning tires after careful examination of its boiler showed it could dispose of a hazardous stockpile of industrial tires. Tire burning did not escape the comment of Powell River residents (See "Anne's Rant on Burning Tires," Watershed Sentinel August/September 2002). Both Alberni and Powell River have new highly efficient fluidized bed boiler grates that greatly improve combustion.

Crofton, like all the other mills, claims that they just want to do a thirty month "test" of the new combustibles, to see if they can solve some of the pollution problems the mill is having with its Number 4 power boiler. "I hope," said mill environmental manager Graham Kissack piously to the Ladysmith Chronicle, "that the public is open to new and innovative ideas . . ."

However a member of Sierra Quadra, Joan Sell, comments that "There doesn't seem to be a lot of actual tests considering the amount of time and burning requested for the testing. Single samples for some, one triplicate test for others." Sell also says, "In my opinion, the Crofton mill just doesn't have adequate pollution controls for the rather risky fuels they want to burn. We know that coal is one of the major sources of airborne mercury, and it is very hard to control or measure. Goodness knows what strange pollution will come from the other so-called fuels."

Elk Falls pulp mill recently outlined its victory on the coal issue in a brochure subtitled "How to Earn Environmental Respectability while being Politically Incorrect." As well as presenting once again the discredited emissions tests, the brochure is a step-by-step guide to winning community acceptance of bizarre industrial practices.

The brochure notes the mill's fear of an appeal of the coal permit: "The biggest concern we had through all this effort was that any decision would be immediately appealed. Appeals are expensive, cause delays, and are unproductive. Appeals have been a common practice in some BC communities. The approval was granted on the 27 of December 2002. Aggrieved persons had 30 days to register their objections. In this case, no appeal was launched."

Sell responds that "The only reason the permit was not appealed was because of the monitoring and testing they were told to do and because there was a time limit to the permit."

The Ministry of Water. Air and Land Protection in Nanaimo is considering the permit application. The period for public comment is closed, but the ministry may take unofficial note of expressions of concern.

Coastal pulp mills, designed to burn waste wood for energy, have problems with smouldering fires which emit dioxins along with other nasty ingredients, because they burn the wet sludge from their treatment ponds, as well as wet "hog fuel" - wood waste made from logs which have been soaked in salt water. The salt forms extra particulate which causes heart disease and hurts the lungs; the chlorine in the salt forms the extraordinarily persistent and toxic dioxin, along with other organochlorines.

A "pollution prevention" solution would be to take the logs out of the ocean, but the coastal forest industry, which has logged out the most profitable old growth valleys, predictably says that it cannot afford such a common sense solution.

The coastal pulp mills are now positioning to argue that the burning of cheap coal is a pollution prevention strategy. The definition of pollution prevention should block acceptance of the new emissions of mercury, sulphur dioxide and greenhouse gases from these new schemes to burn coal. However, there have been so many twists and turns on the endless road to toxics control by the hapless Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment that nothing would be surprising.

The coal, mixed in with the wet wood and sludge, appears to burn the whole mess more evenly than expensive natural gas. Also, the sulphur in the coal interferes with the pathways of the chlorine in the salt, which would otherwise form dioxin in the mill smokestacks. Thus, if you want less dioxin, you need to burn sulphur rich fuels like coal. Simple logic. The mercury is simply "disappeared" by ignoring it, and presto, Pollution Prevention!

Reach for Unbleached! is calling for the mills and the provincial government to abandon these plans that would trade a cheap fuel source for human and environmental health.

MillWatch

No. 44 November/December 2003

No. 44
November/December 2003