Letter 36: Landfill Standards?

Dear Steffanie,
I have still not received any correspondence from Catalyst regarding my numerous concerns with the draft report, and it is apparent from the final report that they have been almost entirely disregarded. I will detail others of those items that were not addressed in a subsequent letter, but I wanted to draw what I feel is a pivotal omission to your attention right at the outset.

I find it very interesting how Catalyst has chosen to deal with the fact that they cannot meet the standards of the landfill criteria as has been repeatedly pointed out to them in letters from the Powell River community...they simply declare that the standards no longer apply to them!

Here is what Catalyst wrote in the first Golder report:

"The following summarizes criteria for landfill siting (based on the BC Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste since there are no similar criteria available for industrial landfills), and describes conceptually how the Landfill addresses these criteria." (page 13, draft Golder report)

When it became clear to them that they simply did not meet these standards, this is what they wrote in report number two:

"There are presently no regulatory criteria or standards for the siting of industrial landfills in British Columbia. The Landfill criteria for Municipal Solid Waste (Landfill criteria) issued by the MOE does not apply to industrial landfills, such as the Wildwood Landfill. However, to provide a bench mark for comparison, Golder has elected to consider the criteria for landfill siting contained in the Landfill Criteria. The following describes conceptually how the Landfill addresses these criteria." (page 20 final Golder report)

The first report says in effect “we will use these because they are the most applicable criteria that we can find.” 
The second report basically retreats to a position of  “you can’t hold us to these” after it became apparent that they did not meet these criteria and that the public was well aware of this.

The question becomes of course, what guidelines do apply here and who is responsible for administering those guidelines?


The technical assessment guide put out by the MOE enjoins those who seek permits or significant amendments to apprise themselves of the “Statutory Requirements- applicable local federal or provincial environmental standards and guidelines including permit requirements, regulations and orders”  (Technical Assessment Guide, p.4)
There are, in fact, guidelines for industrial landfills. The Landfill Criteria does make provision for the administering of industrial waste guidelines when it says, under 3.3 Selected Waste Landfills:

"Selected Waste Landfills are defined as disposal facilities which accept selected types of refuse, not including putrescibles. Wastes received at these landfills may include: demolition, land clearing and construction (DLC) debris; solid industrial wastes (excluding all hazardous wastes) such as foundry sands; and, where recycling options are not available or feasible and only with the approval of the Manager, bulky wastes such as large appliances ("white goods") and derelict motor vehicles. Generally, these Selected Waste Landfills will only receive a few types of waste which should each be discharged to discrete areas of the site".

And this: 2.2 Existing Landfills

"During the preparation of a waste management plan, each regional district is to identify those MSW landfills, including privately owned and operated sites, that do not conform to these criteria. The Waste Management Plan is to include an action plan to upgrade nonconforming landfill(s) to meet these criteria or to justify exemptions. Where a Waste Management Plan is already in place, the holder of the plan is to identify nonconforming landfills and submit a corrective action plan to the Manager on or before December 31, 1995."
"Separate criteria for Modified Sanitary and Selected Waste Landfills have not been established but rather exemptions from Sanitary Landfill criteria may be approved by the Manager, based on site specific environmental and public health considerations. Exemptions based on economic considerations will be contemplated only for existing landfills. The intent of these criteria is to set Sanitary Landfills as the goal for all MSW landfills while recognizing that, for some types of waste and in some areas of the province, there is a need for Modified Sanitary and Selected Waste Landfills."

The LCMSW (Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste) then goes on to state that many of those standards are mandatory and cannot be waived by the Manager. Here under 3.2 it says:

"Based on environmental considerations and economic constraints the Manager may exempt these facilities from some of the criteria except those specified in Sections 4, 5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 7.1, 7.4, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.11 through 7.17, 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.6, all of which are considered mandatory (mandatory sections are designated by an "M" following the section heading). However, at the discretion of the Manager, the siting and operating criteria for these landfills can be made more stringent to reduce impacts on the environment. Modified Sanitary Landfills will normally not be considered acceptable for remote industrial, recreational, exploration and construction camps."

Clearly, there is some recognizance in the Criteria that in the absence of specific guidelines for industrial sites, the LCMSW was meant to apply. There are many examples in the Golder report where there is no provincial guideline in place so the default position is to the nearest comparable standard (such as the use of USEPA standards for dioxins in groundwater because there is no CSR standard available.  -final Golder report, p.9)

As the MOE representative  in the recent Catalyst Stakeholder meeting said, “We hold to the most stringent standards available.” In this case, the most stringent available standard is the LCMSW.

To deny the applicability of any standard at all because of an inability to meet the intended guideline is an attempted dodge of the worst kind.   

In calling the LCMSW a “benchmark” as Catalyst does on page 20 of its final report, it identifies a standard it is striving to meet. It is clear however that Catalyst falls far short of these standards. 

A clear example of this point is 5.1.6. Unstable Areas: 

I pointed out to Sarah Barkowski both by letter and in person at the Wildwood Ratepayers Meeting in May, that the definition in the draft Golder report drawn from the LCMSW was misquoted. At the meeting, she expressed surprise at this and said that if the definition was incorrect that it would be corrected.

 In fact, it was not corrected…it was only partially corrected. The criteria as it stands in the final Golder report is still misquoted by the author(s). It says: 

“The Landfill Criteria state that the landfill is not to be located in an area that is susceptible to natural or human induced events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from a landfill, such as poor foundation soils, landslide areas and Karst terrain.” (Golder final report, pg. 22)

 This is what the Landfill Criteria really says: 

"unstable area" means a location that is susceptible to natural or human-induced events or forces capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible for preventing releases from a landfill. Unstable areas can include poor foundation conditions, areas susceptible to mass movement, and Karst terrains.

 The report still insists on phrasing it as “poor foundation soils” when in fact the LCMSW identifies the criteria as “poor foundation conditions”.  The Criteria never even uses the word soil! Even after this was pointed out to Catalyst both personally and in writing, the report still quotes the Criteria incorrectly. This is presumably because it has been pointed out to them repeatedly that “poor foundation conditions” is exactly what is lying at the base of their proposed landfill. Poor foundation conditions in the form of a fragile asphalt cap, placed to stem the flow of historical contamination, that is predicted by them to deform under the pressure of the proposed landfill. No wonder they refuse to quote it correctly. To do so would immediately make the case for the refusal of their permit. 

Also, rather than beginning a new sentence after the word “releases from a landfill”, the report instead offers an interpretation of the first sentence by saying “such as poor foundation soils…” making it seem as if the point of concern in the criteria was the condition of soils in the landfill, when it is clear from the context of the original statement that the concern is for any conditions that might impair structural components of the landfill.  Having swayed the definition in this way, the report then assures readers that “the soils” are just fine, thank you…when the criteria never even mentions foundation soils at all.

Misquoting the definition once (in the draft report) could simply have been someone’s sloppy mistake. To misquote it twice looks more and more like a deliberate attempt to mislead….and to draw attention away from the fact that this landfill cannot meet the minimum standards for “a structure that is designed to protect the environment” (final report, pg. iv.)

The Golder report continues to compare itself to the LCMSW even while protesting that it cannot be held accountable to those standards. It pays lip service to the value of the standard while allowing no real accountability under the same standard. Are we to believe that the MOE, charged with the protection of the health and safety of citizens in these matters, will countenance a situation that enforces no discernable standards in its promises to “protect the environment?”

Would you please clearly advise as to what standards this application is being held to?

What will the MOE be measuring, when it decides whether this landfill is a “structure that protects the environment” or whether it is, in fact, a structure that imperils human health and safety and causes the disintegration livelihoods, neighborhoods and is a long term threat to the people of this city?