Effluent still effluent
I am writing to alert readers to two important errors in the Jan. 4 article, “Northern Pulp considering hot idle option.” The errors appear to come from statements made by Robin Wilber of Elmsdale Lumber.
The article states that “to keep the mill in hot idle would require taking water from the Middle River and running it through the boilers to keep them going. This water (which would not contain chemicals) would then be released into Boat Harbour. He (Wilber) said this wouldn’t contravene the Boat Harbour Act because it wouldn’t be effluent …”
The Boat Harbour Act uses the same definition for effluent as federal pulp and paper effluent regulations: “effluent means … wastewater from a mill, other than wastewater from the treatment of intake water, including process water, gas scrubbing water, boiler blow-down water, wash-down water, cooling water, leachate from any site at the mill where solid residues generated by any mill are treated or disposed of, and leachate from any site at the mill where woodchips or hogfuel are stored…”
Therefore, it is not correct to state that the discharge from a hot idle is not effluent, nor that the mill could continue to use Boat Harbour to receive this discharge. This would violate the Boat Harbour Act, which requires that effluent stop flowing into Boat Harbour on Jan. 31, 2020.
Second, the article claims that water from a hot idle would not contain chemicals. There is no information available about the composition of effluent that would be generated if Northern Pulp went into a hot idle. There is no evidence that the effluent from a hot idle would not contain chemicals. The effluent stream is fed from many parts of the Northern Pulp site, and includes surface run-off and domestic sewage. Any discharge would be untreated.
These are important errors. Their publication added to an already tense situation. We wish that SaltWire had taken the time to check the accuracy of these statements before circulating them widely.
Jill Graham-Scanlan, Pictou, president, Friends of the Northumberland Strait
Beyond short-term pain
While I do have feelings for all Nova Scotians directly affected by the failure of Northern Pulp to meet its obligations about the poisons it pipes to our communities and environment, the one-sided coverage by The Chronicle Herald, since the announcement the Boat Harbour closure timeline would not be extended, is so frustrating and disappointing.
Yes, we all get it: there is a difficult stage to get through, but where in your coverage is anything about the longer-term opportunity this presents for one of our key sectors to get off its damaging addiction to the pulp industry as the boss of all forest matters?
A single major buyer is probably gone for good, but the wood fibre resource is not leaving. There is a long record of environmental and market downsides to our reliance on pulp mills, not to mention the tax dollars and contribution of our Crown lands that our governments have thrown at them. And there is also a shorter record of plans, strategies, and even some action, on how a reinvented forestry would benefit everyone.
This is not the first time that important sectors of our economy have had to make big changes, and the impact on employees, local suppliers and their families is hard, but at least for this one, the base resource is still here. Even our current government appears ready, finally, to find a better way for us to treat it.
Can’t you find any space in your coverage for the people — no doubt, even some in the industry — who can look beyond the short-term pain?
Chris Topping, Wentworth Valley
Reverse course on mill
I keep waiting for our elected leaders to step forward with some workable, alternative visions for rural Nova Scotia. All I hear is gratuitous bafflegab and, even worse, totally out-of-touch self-congratulatory accolades. The premier celebrates the fact that he kept his word but ignores the fact that he totally abandoned the forest industry. If this wasn’t such a tragedy, it would be farcical.
Somehow, the premier insists he is not to blame, that this is all Northern Pulp’s fault. I say that is pulp fiction. No one in rural Nova Scotia voted for Northern Pulp. For good or bad, Stephen McNeil was voted in to run our province’s business. It was McNeil’s job to ensure that our economy remained stable and jobs and opportunities were there for everyone, not just a few.
Instead, he chose to turn his back on one of the most important industries in our province. Northern Pulp did not make this choice; McNeil did. It is time for our government to take responsibility for this mess. McNeil’s government is the one that set out the terms of engagement, not Northern Pulp.
If Northern Pulp was not living up to its part of the bargain, why were restrictions not put in place? What demands went along with the previous NDP government’s $75-million loan to Great Northern Timber to buy 172,000 hectares of land from the former mill owners — land they manage for Northern Pulp?
What kind of followup and monitoring did the government do to make sure our taxpayers’ dollars were being spent wisely? On top of this, if things were going badly, why did the government not decrease the 200,000-acre Crown lease held by Northern Pulp? Northern was already one of the largest landowners in the province, and decreasing the amount of wood they could cut on Crown land would have sent a strong message. At the same time, it would have increased the amount of private wood the company would take, thus actually helping rural Nova Scotia’s economy.
Premier McNeil, I respectfully ask you revisit your decision. It is not too late to take responsibility. Get Northern Pulp, Pictou Landing First Nation, forest industry representatives, fishery representatives and yourself in one room, and at least try to fix this. Throwing your hands in the air and saying, “Time is up” is not leadership. It is a total and utter failure of leadership.
Gerald Keddy, New Ross, Christmas tree grower
