greenlight - Citizen Journalism onEarth

Editor's Picks |  Read All Community Posts

U.S. Logging Giant Scraps Pollution Controls in Manitoba

Over the Christmas holidays, the Government of Manitoba quietly agreed to let the Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP), with extensive forestry operations in North America, shut down pollution control equipment at one of its wood products plants in the west-central part of the province.

As a result, many emissions such as benzene, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide, have apparently been escaping into the air since January at its “oriented strand board” (OSB) plant near Minitonas in the SwanValley. (OSB is a building product similar to plywood made mostly from poplar tree fiber.)

Now, LP wants to keep that equipment shut down, permanently. Much to the chagrin of environmental groups, the Government is considering that request.

Ironically, it was the New Democratic Opposition Party, now the government, that insisted that the equipment, called “regenerative thermal oxidizers,”(RTOs) be installed when LP was first issued its Manitoba license back in the late 90’s. So did a government advisory body, the Clean Environment Commission. Environmentalists added their voices to the calls for controls.

Under the pressure, the government and company capitulated.

Don Sullivan of the Winnipeg-based Boreal Forest Network says the RTOs cost the company about $10 million dollars and now need to be replaced. Sullivan suggests this plus the cost of operating them are the real reasons behind the company’s move.

Sullivan says he can appreciate that the housing slump in the “States has hit sales of OSB. But the company decision, he adds, shouldn’t come at the expense of the health of those living near the plant. Both Sullivan and another official of the Boreal Action Network, Susanne McRae, note that the housing crisis is worse in the US than Canada, yet all OSB plants in the ‘States have pollution controls. So, they reason, Canada deserves the same treatment.

LP has had a bit of a chequered past in terms of its environmental record in the United States. In the 1990’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), imposed what, at the time, was its largest fine ever on the company. It ordered LP to pay more than $11 million for falsely reporting how much pollution its OSB plants there were emitting.

It was also ordered to outfit those plants with the best pollution abatement technology available.

But that isn’t the end of the story.

Less than three years ago, the EPA cited Louisiana Pacific again for allegedly exceeding emission limits for smoke, ash and dust from one of its OSB plants in Michigan. As Bharat Mathur of the EPA put it at the time, “Inhaling high concentrations of particulates can affect children, the elderly and people with heart and lung conditions.”

A long-time critic of LP operations, Dan Soprovich of Swan River, is quoted as saying, “This is a cost-driven decision that will compromise human health and the environment as a means to support an American company that has taken millions of dollars out of this province.”

Soprovich was a government biologist when LP was originally granted its license. He was fired after opposing the project, saying LP had given extremely optimistic forecasts about how sustainable the forest would be in the harvest area.

Manitoba’s Assistant Deputy Minister of Conservation, Ryan Coulter, has so far been the only government official to comment. He told CBC Radio recently that monitoring at the site has shown that pollutants do not seem to have exceeded allowable limits, so far. Coulter left open the possibility of a public consultation process on the issue and even a formal hearing by the Clean Environment Commission before a final decision is made.

In any case, the temporary permit already issued seems to guarantee the company it can keep its RTOs offine until June. Louisiana Pacific hasn’t commented publicly, so far.

Comments

  • sms wrote on March 18, 2009, 11:37PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    I was involved in the construction of this mill in 1994. There wa absolutely NO scientic reason to burn all this nautural gas and create the resulting NOx and CO2 emissions. The comapany ageed to this techology because the USEPA was forcing it as retribution for a defeated lawsut in the US. At that time natural gas was cheap and LP wanted to build the mill --- so they ageed to RTO's. About the same time they were building a mill in Ireland, but the Irish government said burning all that gas for no environmental benifit was crazy - so no RTO's were installed in Ireland. It is finally time to fix a 15 year old politically driven environmetal mistake!!!!!

  • Request to remain anonymus wrote on March 22, 2009, 12:08PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate Flag this comment as inappropriate

    As far as I understand, the rate payers of the communities around the LP plant in Minnitonas, MB (Swan River, etc.)had to pay the brunt of getting the plant supplied with natural gas in the first place. It was not supplied by Manitoba Hydro at the time. The estimate of how many residents would actually choose to use natural gas once the lines were installed were highly inflated. The company got a huge break and the cost was passed on to the local communities....

    Also, the suggestion that the process leading to the temporary decommissioning of the RTOs was not as open as the company suggests it was. Many folks that were involved in the original struggle to ensure the installation of adequate pollution abatement equipment did not know that LP was even applying for a decommissioning. LP was definitely flying under the wire as local environmental champions still living and working in the community were caught completely unaware.

    Finally, LP has not been the best(!) corporate citizen in the US, so it is right that people are skeptical about their assurances. It is also terrible that Canada and its provinces do not hold US-based companies to at least the standards of their "home" nations--in this case the US. If we in Canada do not demand more, just think of the precedent this sets for LP's operations in developing nations!!!

    Also, I am not a fan of corporate bail outs. However, when reducing costs by eliminating pollution abatement equipment becomes a bone of contention, I think the provincial and federal governments should look aggressively at what can be done so that local jobs aren't lost and the health of the workers and communities is not put at risk. It should not be health or jobs--especially when the company and its shareholders have been making lots of money over the years by cutting and/or processing local timber--much of it being a publicly-owned resource!

Comment on this post
OnEarth is a quarterly magazine of thought and opinion on the environment. OnEarth and the Greenlight blog are open to diverse points of view; the opinions expressed by contributors, online commenters, and the editors are their own and not necessarily those of NRDC.


Subscribe to Magazine | Site Map | About OnEarth | All Authors | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Contact the Editors | NRDC Home

NRDC