Letter 38: Consultation Report

RE: Amendment to Permit Application for Catalyst Paper-Powell River Division-Consultation Report

Dear Ms Warriner and / or Mr. Fournier,

Thank you for your letter to me of September 7, 2007, in which you acknowledge receipt of my letters. Thank you also for including information about the consultant that has been retained by your department.

I received a letter from Dr. Sarah Barkowski, of Catalyst Paper- Powell River Division as part of the consultation component of the permit amendment process which Catalyst Paper-Powell River Division is engaged in for a change to the Wildwood Landfill. I found the letter to be more frustrating than informative. If the purpose of the public having a chance to address the permit applicant is to provide a chance for the proposal to be improved, then this is a complete failure. Not only were many topics ignored, many were not fully answered, others were given a dismissal and legalistic response to the effect that if the item was not in the “Terms of Reference’, it is not to be discussed. Also, the report is incomplete.

If all concerns brought to the attention of the applicant must be addressed, and documented, then this consultation report is incomplete. As part of this report Catalyst Paper quite rightly submitted some e-mails between Dr. Barkowski and myself, as well as a letter which I had written and Catalyst had over written a response. But missed in this is an e-mail of May 11, 2007, in which Dr. Barkowski develops a figure to account for the volume of leachate that is pumped from the mini-landfill. I am including it as part of the public record, even though Catalyst has chosen not to release it.

This consultation process is somewhat time consuming, and limits the chance of a speedy exchange of information, but it does provide the opportunity to develop a full point of view and to provide a full explanation of the issue in question. Unfortunately many of the concerns brought forward by myself and others have been given a rather trite response in which an assertion is presented as an argument, without supporting evidence—the whole subject of PM 2.5 is one such issue. There also seems to be some confusion between what are the concerns to be addressed in an environmental assessment and how those concerns will be met. An example of this is evident on page 3 “Detailed engineering design and operational plans are not prepared at the stage of submitting a permit amendment application.” Unfortunately Catalyst has followed that dictum so as to not provide any sort of indication of just how it is that they will not make further impacts on the environment as they add more and more waste above an existing site which has severe limits as to its suitability [the sequence and procedures of filling the site are deferred]. The location of the site, situated as it is next to an established neighbourhood, and over a zone of complex water flows, all above a substrate of fractured rock, as well as the history associated with the site, cannot be eliminated without substantial evidence. None is presented.

--Zoning and legal issues

One item of note is that of the landfill site zoning. Although this may not be a direct responsibility of the Ministry of Environment [MoE] to ensure that all proper local zoning and permits are in place, the attitude displayed is indicative of an underlying attitude; that of a feeling of ‘entitlement’. On page 4, “The City has advised Catalyst that as long as the type of material placed in that portion of the Phase 2 landfill is flyash slurry, re-zoning is not required.” This does not compare with a letter I received from the City of Powell River, April 26, 2007. which states, “In regards to the Catalyst property in Wildwood, the City is aware that the land use encroached over the boundary between A2 and M3 and was advised previously that a rezoning application was forthcoming.” While this attitude by Catalyst towards the local municipal authority might be somewhat expected in a “one industry town”, this is also reflected towards the MoE. On page 12, “Catalyst Paper and Golder Associates elected to consider the Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste (Criteria) for landfill siting as a benchmark for comparison even though the Criteria do not apply to industrial landfill sites.” This is bothersome as it leads to the inevitable result that the applicant can pick and chose what to follow. While it is true that the wording of the Waste Management Act refers to municipal solid waste, the regulations also make it clear that there are items which are mandated, and cannot be changed except to be made more stringent. The very fact that a permit is required to deposit waste in British Columbia should be reason enough to confirm that the law does indeed apply to this company as it does to all others. An exemption from these requirements can be challenged in a court of law. For Catalyst to claim some sort of exemption from the 300 meter and the 100 meter set back requirements is totally unreasonable. This alone is enough to reject the application [and there is more].

Also included in the discussion of the local zoning requirements [page 4], Catalyst makes the assertion that the “…current amendment application does not increase the footprint of the existing landfill area.” Where then will the “Active pond”, as proposed in the final Golder report, be placed? Does this mean that the “Active pond” will not be built and instead a system of covering the deposited flyash with temporary and permanent covers be utilized? There is no enlightenment.

--Finding a use for the fly ash and other future options

I wish the company well in their pursuit of finding a use for the fly ash that they produce. Over the years the whole question of fly ash and its use has been largely left to the vagaries of chance. In the event that Catalyst does not receive an approval for their amendment application, the company still has the option of sending their fly ash to the Rebanco operation in Washington State. As far as I know, the whole idea of sending the flyash as a solid casting within some sort of light container has not been explored with Rebanco or any other receiving site. Despite the rather unique view of the history of sending the waste to Rebanco, as outlined on pages 12 and 13, this is still very much an option for Catalyst. In fact, just such an option might be enough to provide the motivation for Catalyst Paper-Powell River Division to commit to finding a use for the fly ash they produce.

Mini- landfill liner integrity and leak detecting system

The analysis provided in the letter from Dr. Barkowski to provide support for Catalyst’s contention that the liner of the mini-landfill and the leakage detection system function as designed is not credible. The figures provided to support that argument, are more a case of pure conjecture than anything that can be demonstrated. -
-- If there is an annual precipitation of 1,103 mm for Powell River, and it fell on the 2.7 hectares of the mini-landfill, it would indeed produce 29,781 cubic meters of water that must be conducted from the site.
--Added to this is the amount of water that flows from the asphalt lip which surrounds the mini-landfill. [During a rainstorm, this flow is clearly evident as I watch from the top of the rock bluff beside and above the landfill. What is more difficult to estimate is the area that provides water to the mini-landfill. I will conservatively place this as 0.5 hectare.] This adds 5,000 cubic meters, for a total of 34,781 cubic meters.
---Add to this another conservative estimate of 260 cubic meters of water from the truck wash, for a total of 35, 041 cubic meters.
---Losses from evaporation are definitely not 19% of the total rainfall. That might be the case if this were an open body of water, but this is not the case. Any rainfall that falls on the site is conducted away and gravity soon places it below the ground and out of the domain of evaporation. Any water that would be available to evaporate would of necessity be only that required to wet the surface of the landfill area. Also, evaporation will not occur during rainstorms, nor in times of fog or high humidity or low temperatures. Even a factor of 5% loss to evaporation would be more than the actual loss. [I discussed this issue with Mr. Russ Storrey, a professional engineer who is the Operations Manager for Powell River Energy Ltd., and he characterizes the losses from the surface of all of Powell Lake as ‘’negligible”.] So the total becomes 33, 890 cubic meters.
---But there also are at least 2, 398 cubic meters of leachate from the recovery wells that are added to the volume, which must be processed, for a total of 35, 687 cubic meters.
---Catalyst paper has not voluntarily reported the volumes, which are pumped from the mini-landfill. [The email of May 11, 2007, which is attached to this letter, shows that Catalyst has not known the volumes, and has had to create the numbers. Neither Dr. Barkowski, nor Mr. Kilback are familiar with these numbers.] Catalyst then arrived at a figure of 26.500 cubic meters. This leaves a volume of 9187 cubic meters, which are unaccounted for-as a minimum. Not included in the figures are the water added by the irrigation system as a dust suppressant. At a minimum, 1/3 of the water, which arrives on the site of the mini-landfill, is not registered, and must be escaping.

There are also other indications that water is escaping into the surrounding environment. The plume that such a leak would form seems to be evident in the results of the wells #89-5 (11 meters) and #AH-6L (29 meters). Also the water flow patterns below the asphalt-capped portion appears to have a source of lateral flow to replenish the water at a depth below the protection offered by the asphalt surface. While some of the liquid seems to be moving laterally, most of this escaping liquid is probably being conducted down along a rock face and introduced into the zone of fractured rock below the landfill. I discuss this in my letter of July 31, 2007.

The information that I have received from persons who have actually worked on the landfill site during its construction consistently refer to the differing levels of construction practises at the site. Great care was taken when an inspector was present, but that turned to a “hurry up and get the job done” when no inspector. At least one of my informants would dearly love to tell his story and show his pictures to someone in authority. He wants to tell it “like it is”. He understands that what he is challenges the official version of how the landfill was built and how it operates. He is willing to meet with someone from your department “if something will be done about it”.

Also in my letter of July 31, 2007, I describe how the leak detection system has been totally compromised during the construction of the landfill. With the collection pipes full of earth, there is no possibility of a functional leak detection system. The fact that no liquid is ever collected from the leakage detection system serves to reinforce the argument that the whole of the mini-landfill system functions beyond the level of reasonable expectations, or that the leakage detection system doesn’t function at all. The people who built it have their opinion.

The very unfamiliarity of Catalyst personnel with the volumes of liquid being collected, pumped and processed as a part of the whole operation of the landfill shows that this has been ignored. Because the MoE has mistakenly agreed to the argument that what happens on a site is proprietary in nature, this has rendered the MoE blind on this issue. There is no body of evidence to indicate that the mini-landfill is functioning as designed, and anecdotal information challenges that assumption. A simple test would be to prove the integrity of the liner and to see if it really does hold water—the so called ‘bath tub test’. The figures presented in the Catalyst letter are not persuasive and are largely imaginary.

--Groundwater contamination entering the environment

On page 8 of the Catalyst letter, Dr. Barkowski mentions that, “ Golder considers the estimated recovery of 50% to represent a relatively successful collection system. In fact, even the lower bound estimate of 25% recovery would be considered fairly reasonable in such highly complex flow systems.” This acknowledgment that pollution is entering the environment is appreciated. However, it also highlights the unsuitable nature of this site to be used as a landfill. If it is “reasonable” to accept up to 75% of the flows to be entering the environment, then it is unreasonable that this site be used as a landfill—why continue with a site where the complexity of that site places the environment at risk? The problems will only get worse.

--Dioxin furan analysis

Since levels of dioxins and furans have consistently shown up in the water being tested at the mill filter house, this is evidence that there is pollution entering the environment. It is nice to have Golder and Associates confirm that fact as they have done in their analysis of the figures.

Even if we accept the analysis done by Golder without question, the fact that pollutants are entering the environment and this is being detected at the filter house is confirmed. If in 10 cases out of 33 samples, dioxins and furans were found, and even if 6 of those ten results are considered unreliable, that still leaves four examples of pollution being reliably reported. And even if a further two samples are also rejected, but for different reasons, that leaves a minimum of two (and possibly up to four) cases when dioxins and furans were reliably reported. Pollution is entering the environment- most probably from the landfill leaking into Powell Lake and Powell River. A previous stop pollution order is not being met.

In the discussion of the reliability of the testing for dioxins and furans much is made of the “…constraints associated with the analysis of dioxins and furans at extremely small (picogram) concentration levels.” (page 7) This is indeed the case, and it is also further highlighted when you consider the factors of dilution involved with the daily flow of water past the foot of the landfill. Each day approximately 100,000 cubic meters of water flow through the turbines of Powell River Energy Ltd., plus the Catalyst mill itself uses another 2,000 cubic meters of water. If a sample of water equal to one litre were taken to be tested, this would be equal to less than one billionth of the daily volume of water flow. Interestingly, this is roughly the same proportion as that found to be the level of dioxins and furans in the same sample. If the same proportions were extrapolated to find the total volume of dioxins and furans, which are in the daily flow, this would result in something in excess of one litre of dioxins and furans that enter the environment at this point each day. This is very significant. [And, we haven’t challenged Golder’s analysis yet.]

One interesting factor, which seems to be common in all the samples, which show the presence of the dioxins and furans, is that the positive results tend to occur only in the tests done during the summer months. There is a simple explanation for this. Since the daily flows through the dam and the mill tend to be constant, it is during the summer that the lake is being brought down and the water that is passing through the mill filter house is water that has been retained in Powell Lake for a longer period of time. This allows for a more thorough mixing to take place. During the heavy rainfall season, the water tends to be conducted past the filter house so that the more recently arrived water at the top of the lake is being conducted out to the ocean. Since the volumes are so vast, the extra time provided for mixing would reasonably occur in times of low precipitation. And, since the distances involved are quite short, this extra time is vital for a thorough mix. The pattern of results being found is almost as important as are the results themselves.

For Catalyst and Golder to say that the levels found “…were far below the United States Environment Protection Agency maximum contaminant level for dioxin in water” (page 7) misses the point. There should be no level of contaminant found at all. The landfill is providing pollution that is entering the environment.

For Golder to challenge the results as they have done, raises some important questions, and also provides further evidence of contaminants reaching the environment, as well as providing a fuller picture of how this is occurring

1. First of all, in none of the tables that report the results of the water testing, are there any disclaimers as to the reliability of the results. In fact, in the annual reports that I have seen, there is a certificate of assurance as to the results provided by the laboratories doing the testing. Presumably, competent laboratories are engaged in doing the analysis—if not, why not?
2. -Secondly, if there are false levels of positive results being measured, then by the same logic, there are also false negatives being produced. The whole reliability of the results becomes an issue. Then there would also be instances where the presence of pollutants would not have been detected. The problem could be a lot worse than it the figures now indicate. By rejecting the results as shown, it actually increases the probability of contaminants entering the environment ---since Golder acknowledges that from two to four samples are in fact reliable results, even at these low levels, the question becomes ‘to what extent is the pollution happening?’
3. -Thirdly, since the pattern of results seems to be entirely consistent and since a qualified laboratory did these tests, it is more coherent to accept all of the results as being reliably reported. This would also include the result, which is reported on page 7 of the Catalyst letter as an anomalous result in a September test [a time of low precipitation] in which a result of 24 pg/L was reported in a sample taken from Powell Lake. In fact what seems to have happened is that the sampler may have stumbled onto a spot near where the pollution enters the lake below the surface of the water. While the Catalyst letter does not say where the sample was taken except “…at a location approximately 1 km upstream where the springs discharge, in September and December 1999 and March 2000’’ this would presumably be near “The Shinglemill Pub”. If this is the case, then it reinforces the contention that liquid is being conducted into the zone of fractured rock beneath the landfill, and the liquid is traveling significant distances. The “Shinglemill Pub” is north east of the landfill and is in line with the direction of the fractures, which show up in the visible rock outcrops in the area. Since testing done on water, which emerges as a spring just before the Wildwood Bridge has shown significant levels of contamination on previous testing, the possibility that the pollution is extending as far as the “Shinglemill Pub” is very probable.

The analysis by Golder and Associates in fact confirms the presence of contaminants entering the environment, with the results being reported at both the water entering the mill at the filter house which is at the end of the natural flow path in Powell River, and in Powell Lake itself. To make any further use of the site as a continued landfill would only compound the problem. In fact, this is more than enough information to order an immediate halt to the landfill, and also some sort of containment and remediation of the site. This also has the effect of being counter to a previous stop pollution order by the MoE.

---Fractured rock and under flow to Powell Lake and Powell River

Now is a good time to note that no mention is made of either of these issues in the letter of response from Catalyst Paper.

--Hazardous waste in old landfill and integrity of the asphalt cap

It is interesting to note that Catalyst agrees that there is a risk in expanding upon the present site (page 9), and not surprisingly, I disagree that the risks are reasonable. In part this is a determination of risk/benefit analysis. There are no benefits to the local residents from this landfill expansion, while any intrusion and risk is born mainly by those in closest proximity to the landfill—the neighbours.

It is also interesting to note that Catalyst agrees that there is contamination of the old site, and only contests the degree of contamination—is it more or less than the old Expo site in Vancouver? Even if it is less than that site, the contamination is extensive and not contained, and ‘”…the fact that some historic wastes may meet classification by today’s standards as hazardous waste’’ (page 9), makes it imperative that this not be further compromised.

The Catalyst response assumes that there be no further compaction of the old landfill materials. However, after over 20 years of time, much activity below the asphalt cap is occurring. There will be factors of decay of organic material such as buried hog fuel, and rusting of iron barrels as well as factors of material fatigue to consider. If there is an impervious membrane that will be placed over the asphalt to conduct any water away from the site, this will also have the effect of trapping any escaping gasses beneath the membrane. I see no reference to this in either the letter of response or in the Golder report.

As in so many of the items about this proposal, the risks of any failure with the landfill are being carried by those nearest and most exposed to the site. The risks to the company are only to a corporate entity that is remote from the site and are translated into a financial factor. Even those risks are also given to the nearby residents—if the company were to cease functioning or to declare bankruptcy, the residents again carry a disproportionate risk.

--Dust issues

There has been a marked improvement in the neighbourhood since Catalyst has begun to deposit the fly ash as a slurry—and I have thanked the company for that. However, dust and fine particulate concerns remain. It is hard for the company to argue that there is no danger of any escaping particulate when even a casual glance at either of the two cement trucks, used to transport the slurry to the landfill site, shows each of the vehicles smeared with dust and grim. The trucks show that they are operating in a very dusty environment and are transporting that burden of fly ash to the landfill both on the inside as well as the outside of their vehicles. The trucks attest to the presence of a fine and pervasive particulate matter, and they go along public assess routes as well. It is more than just steam that leaves the truck (page 14) on its route to the landfill---it is hard for steam to leave the mirrors, or the top deck of a truck.

The fact that health risk exists with particulate matter of a PM 2.5, by the very nature and size of the particulate itself, is well documented on the B.C. Lung Association web site which is referred to on page 17 of the Catalyst letter. The fact that there is no acceptable level of exposure to particulate matter of this size seems to have been missed. The very presence of particulate matter of this size in the fly ash should render this to be classified as a hazardous waste. In a response letter to another correspondent, Catalyst estimates the volume of PM 2.5 to be approximately 5% of the material, by volume. This is significant.

Again, this is an issue in which Catalyst seems to have missed the point. There is no acceptable level of PM 2.5, which is acceptable. If this fly ash continues to be deposited in this landfill, it should be deposited in such a manner that it is totally contained and never has the chance to re-enter the environment. A system of temporary and permanent covers is a necessity, and is not being considered.

--Safety

If the fly ash continues to come to this landfill, a much safer system of delivery to the site must be established. As it is now, the trucks must cross a double yellow line on a blind corner of Highway 101 to gain access to the landfill. With that happening in excess of 14 times per day, there will soon be another accident on that corner. This may be an issue in which the Ministry of Highways should be involved.

---Out of scope issues

I find it interesting that these central issues to the whole proposal are characterized with such a term. Many of the items have been discussed in my response to the consultation letter.
--There is leakage from the mini-landfill. A reasonable interpretation of the limited data available confirms this. In fact, the problem could be significantly larger than I have stated.
--Dioxins and furans are definitely entering the environment. With the help of the response from Golder in the appendix, a wider area of concern seems to have been identified, to include the probability that leachate is being conducted towards the “Shinglemill Pub”.
--The “bathtub method” of testing the mini-landfill seems to be a simple and an imperative measure to follow. The annual reports of the landfill are in fact silent on the issue of volumes of liquid from the mini-landfill.
--The ”black goo” is an issue which started the whole question of pollution escaping the landfill site and entering the environment. It was the discovery of just such a “black goo” emerging from the rocks that are usually below the water level of the river that alerted people that there was a problem. There is every indication that there is still pollution entering the environment by way of the fractured rock zone.
--The groundwater flow to Powell River that needs to be monitored must be expanded to include sediments as well as the water quality.
--The asphalt cap is used as an impermeable barrier to prevent water from entering the old landfill and anything that would compromise it should be avoided [unless the hazardous substances below were removed, of course.

In your deliberations as to the granting of the permit amendment, please remember that you are entrusted by all of us citizens to be the stewards and protectors of the environment. You do not speak for industry. You speak for the environment.

The present landfill site is already compromised. Any further addition to the site will not lessen the burden on the environment, but will compound it. The site is so unsuited to being a landfill, it should never have been used for such a purpose. Please don’t compound it.

Yours truly,

David Harris.