Re: Sign onto Hydrogen Sulfide Petition to EPA

[philip@prcn.org (Philip Fleischer)]

Thanks for citing those ref's.

The appellants seeking to quash or modify the amendment to the
Pacifica Paper Powell River air emissions permit are very interested
in reduced sulphur gases.  It is one of the major points of contention.
We have already cited Dr. Kilburn's Journal of the SMA article and
we would like more.

We do not have ready access to a medical library and would
appreciate email or other electronic text of any of the refs listed
in the original posting or anything similar.

The following is a brief of the appeal so far...

The stay decision on the appeal of Pacifica Paper Powell River
recovery boiler permit amendment has deen issued.  The stay is
denied.  And in another ruling of the Environmental Appeal Board,
the presidents of two union locals were given limited standing
in the appeal.

Seven persons in Powell River BC had registered appeals with
the Environemntal Appeal Board against the October 20 1998
amendment of Pacifica Papers (previously Macmillan Bloedel)
air emissions Permit issued under BC's Waste Managment Act.

The Board has the jurisdiction to review Permit decisions of
Regional Waste Managers of the BC Ministry of Environment.  On
the basis of written submissions and hearings, the Board may
cancel or vary the conditions of permits or send a permit back
to a Waste Manager with instructions on how to rewrite it.

The appellants asked for a stay of the old permit.  A stay is
generally processed by written submissions and if ordered
holds conditions of the old permit in effect while the amended
or new permit is argued.

A stay of the old permit for Pacifica Papers recovery boiler
would have effectively shut down that boiler and through that
kraft pulp production at that mill.  The Board denied the stay
in an eleven page decision.

The Powell River Pulp and Paper mill built in 1912 has had a
kraft line since 1967 but also produces groundwood pulp and
TMP.  It was division of Macmillan Bloedel until recently when
it and the Port Alberni mill became Pacifica Papers.

The mill operates under Waste Management Act air emissions
permit PA03149 which specifies in its 1995 and 1997 amendments
that the recovery boiler should operate at 'Level A' standards
as of January 1 1999.  No action was taken by the company to
upgrade the recovery boiler such that it could meet those standards
until the fall of 1998.   This was far too late for completion
within the permit deadline.  In fact, that the boiler can be made
to comply, even given an extension in time, is not certain.

Before considering upgrades, the company was attempting to
obtain from the Minister of Environment a 'Ministerial variance'
to avoid the Level A permit conditions for the recovery boiler.
And, because the kraft mill would not comply with the year 2002 zero
AOX (absorbable organic halide) effluent law, the company did not
see the recovery boiler as worthy of investment.  The coastal pulp
and paper industry is lobbying in British Columbia to have the
AOX laws altered.

The Minister of Environment refused the variance and the company
applied for an amended permit in August.  With that application,
the company announced a recovery boiler upgrade program.  Although
the complete upgrade path for the boiler is not fully specified, a
schedule whereby the boiler will meet Level A standards for the
stack parameters total reduced sulphur (TRS) and particulate, was
approved by the Regional Waste Manager and issued in the permit
amendment of October 20 1998.

Within the 30 day deadline allowed for Waste Management Act appeals,
seven persons in Powell River appealed.  The major ground of appeal
is that Level A standards should have been met on time.  There is a
background of air quality and pollution issues in Powell River and
there have been appeals and related actions before.  However, this
appeal is big, both in number appellants and in the issues raised.

The Board accepted the potential of harm which the appellants
attempted to demonstrate for the stay but the board did not see
sufficient evidence to order a stay.  The claim that 174 layoffs
could occur because the recovery boiler cannot operate at Level A was
a major concern of opponents of the stay who made submissions.  These
included John Reynolds, the member of parliament for the Sunshine
Coast Powell River federal riding.

In their submission to the Board on the stay, Pacifica had said
that the appellants had not demonstrated that there was a serious
issue to be tried, which is the first test in deciding a stay.

The Board in its decision said that they were

 ...satisfied that the appeal raises serious issues about the impact
 of TRS and PM10 emissions on human health and the environment.  [...]
 While odour is considered to be the primary concern about TRS, the
 Panel is satisfied that the effects of the odour itself may represent
 a serious issue to be tried, and that in any event, high
 concentrations of TRS may also have negative health and environmental
 impacts.

Despite the fact that the Board did not grant a stay, the appellants
take some encouragment in the issue of TRS is being taken so seriously.
The company and the Regional Waste Manager had submitted to the Board
that TRS was not a serious issue and guidelines for ambient TRS were for
aesthetic purposes only.

The appellants have also argued a 20ug/m3 pm10 threshold of harm
rather than the 50ug/m3 level which is the more 'official' criteria in
the province.  The Board neither accepted nor rejected this criteria
as far as the stay is concerned.  However, the decision's review of
certain such points suggests what kind of evidence the appellants
will have to bring to hearings in order to obtain a favourable
decision:

  Nevertheless the Panel notes that based on additional evidence,
  which may be presented at the hearing of the merits of the appeal,
  the Panel may or may not ultimately find that the evidence shows
  that maintenance of the B Level is causing irreparable harm.

No dates are yet set for hearings, but, the stay decision suggests
that the appeal should be resolved in six to eight months.  The
appellants, familar with the company's stall tactics, will keep that
in mind and if need be may apply again for a stay.