Letter 35: Status of the application

RE: Status of Catalyst Paper- Powell River Division application to amend the Wildwood landfill permit.

Dear Ms Warriner,

It seems that the procedure to follow when a company wishes to apply for a waste management permit, or an amendment to a permit, are still being created---it seems to be a dynamic process to establish an open and fair system; at least that is my hope.

One such deficiency in the current application by Catalyst Paper- Powell River Division, was reported to me this week. Nelle Maxie relayed the information that in a telephone conversation she had with Dr. Sarah Barkowski of Catalyst Paper- Powell River Division, she was told that a new and more complete technical report on the Wildwood landfill was requested by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, and that this report was to have been delivered to Catalyst Paper sometime this past week. This raises several points—

1. Thank you for requesting that a more detailed, accurate and focused report be prepared to accompany this application by Catalyst Paper.  While preparing a response to the pending application that Catalyst Paper, it seemed particularly inadequate to be given only a draft version of the technical report to use as a basis for study. If the report was so inadequate that the authors and the proponents could not defend it as accurate, it also limited any interpretation that would be placed on it. Since the nature of a draft report is so that the contents can be changed, it seemed that the community was doing the work of revising a report that should more properly been written by the professionals involved. If this was the case, that you and your ministry wished to have a more definitive study and characterization of the site to accompany this application, then I thank you again. But, this leads to the next point.
   
   
2. I have been told that the process is one in which we are to communicate directly with the applicant—or at least, at this stage. I have written several letters to Catalyst Paper since the open house of April 18, 2007. For those letters which speak directly to the application, I have not even had the courtesy of a response to confirm that my letters have been received by the company.[ It is a bit like writing to Santa—I don’t usually get a response or delivery of ‘’the goods’’ from  him either.] If the company cannot manage a system of response to communications which are expected of it, what else is missed?
   
   
3.  Similarly, there has been no information given to me or to others who have written the company that a revision to the technical report was even contemplated, let alone, requested.  At the time that  a new report was requested of the company, this information should  have been relayed to the community at large.
   
   
4. This is a major change to the process. This new technical report was not available to the public at the open house in Powell River, nor to the one in Sliammon. For the process to have any credibility or fairness, this new report should be made available to the public in general, and to anyone who has written to the company, in particular. The company could ensure that any one who has written the company, be furnished with a copy of the revised report.
   
   
5. In some ways, this is like starting over. Please ensure that everyone who is interested in preparing a response to the new information be granted a period of time to do so. Since this is now summer, may I request that instead of a 30 day period, a 60 day period be given for a response—it is often difficult to get information from other agencies at this time.
   
   
6. It is vital that a full public hearing be given this application. At some point following the submission of the actual application to your office, a public hearing should be held so that all who are interested can ask questions and clarifications of the company, and all can hear the answers. There is much public discussion on this subject and a full public hearing is necessary.

It seems that the very process itself of providing the necessary information and its interpretation for this application is a dynamic process.

Yours truly, 

David Harris.

Cc: Dr. Sarah Barkowski, Manager, Environment & Quality Control, Catalyst Paper-Powell River Division.