• Celgar Pulp Company v. Deputy Director of Waste Management

    Decision Date:
    File Numbers:
    Decision Numbers:
    Third Party:
    Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Third Party


    Decision Date: May 29, 1998

    Panel: Katherine Hough, Harry Higgins, Elizabeth Keay

    Celgar Pulp Company (“Celgar”) operates a pulp and paper mill near Castlegar, B.C. Celgar filed two appeals against two decisions of the Deputy Director of Waste Management concerning permit amendments issued by the Regional Waste Manager. The parts of the permit under appeal included the requirement that Celgar institute a comprehensive monitoring program of emission limits for NOx (nitrogen oxides) on the #2 Power Boiler and the lime kiln. The Board was asked to determine whether the Deputy Director had prohibited the used of the #2 Power Boiler as a concentrated non-condensable gases (“CNCG”) incinerator and if there was a need for a stand alone incinerator on site. The Board was also asked to determine if the permit should require a stack-height on-site meteorological testing station.

    The Board found that the Deputy Director allowed the use of the #2 Power Boiler as a CNCG incinerator in emergency circumstances or when the lime kiln was inoperable. However, the use of the #2 Power Boiler as a CNCG incinerator was not to exceed 5 % per month. The Board further found that no stand alone incinerator was required at this time. With respect to a meteorological testing station, the Board found that the requirement in the decision for five more years of monitoring from a stack-height on-site monitor was unnecessary because the monitoring stations already in operation were satisfactory indicators of the contaminants being introduced into the environment. Finally, the Board found that by reimposing NOx emission levels, the intent of the original permit would be met. As a result, the Board imposed limits. The Board agreed with the Appellant and the Respondent that continuous monitoring for NOx was not required. Thus, the Board found that the current quarterly monitoring was sufficient to determine whether the emission levels were being met.

    The Board upheld the appeal in part.