Summary of Follow-up Actions to Complaints by Citizens Regarding The Catalyst Landfill Application

History

In late 2007, a request was made by Alison Taplay for an opportunity to have anonymous persons to step forward and provide evidence of alleged wrong doing or technical problems surrounding the proposed Catalyst Landfill amendment application. On January 21,2008 Jeff Foumier and Conservation Officer Gerry Lister took information from these individuals on an anonymous basis to look into the substance of these complaints.

The individuals that stepped forward provided a mix of concerns, second hand information and first hand observations of potential issues. It was apparent to me that certain concerns had technical merit that would warrant ministry follow-up while others did not. It was also apparent to me that a number of issues were raised out of a genuine concern for human health and the environment while others appear to be in the primary interest of severely restricting or shutting down use of the landfill.

After careful review of the transcripts and voice recordings, I identified the complaints that 1) pertained to the landfill and 2) had technical merit regarding potential environmental impacts. From this review, a number of questions associated with of potential key technical issues were developed for follow-up by ministry staff and/or for input by Catalyst staff. On April 17th 2008, a meeting was held with Catalyst staff to obtain their initial input on the questions or issues that had been raised. A summary of their input from that meeting date as well as other subsequent salient information gathered is currently being finalized for release.

To deal with the unusual circumstances of having persons that want to provide anonymous complaints/allegations in a normally public administrative process, our Ministry of the Attorney General solicitor was contacted for advice. I was advised that in order for any information to be considered as part adjudication of the amendment application (or any other public process) the information and information provider needed to be disclosed in an open and transparent manner. I was further advised that with complaints of wrong doing or offences, the complaints and complainant could only remain anonymous while allegations were being assessed but once court action was to be pursued and a statement that would reveal the complainants name was needed to initiate an investigation.

On April 25th, I advised Alison Taplay of what our lawyer had said and advised her to discuss these points with all parties that provided information. I further advised her that I needed to hear directly from each individual as to their ongoing interest in remaining anonymous or their interest in making the information they provided public, and accordingly, available for consideration as part of the landfill application evaluation process. Further, I advised her that complaints about wrongdoing at the mill would need to be dealt with through a separate and future process.

On April 30th thru May 1st, I made a second trip to Powell River to meet with Catalyst staff, members of the public that previously provided input, new members of the public that wished to provide input and members of the Powell Legacy group as follows:

On April 30th, follow-up discussions were done with Catalyst staff with respect to clarifying or updating their input to the questions I had posed to them on April 17, 2008. Also, a field inspection was done to look at sites where concerns had been raised regarding "black ooze" material that had been reported going down slope from the landfill into the river. It is alleged that this material contains toxic substance that originated upslope in the land fill and is contaminating Powell River.

On May 1st I did individual follow-up meetings with:
- the persons that provided input on January 21*,
- separate meetings with two additional individuals (Private Individual and another yet to be named individual) that indicated they had information relevant to the landfill,
- a group meeting with Powell River Legacy members and the persons that that had accompanied the persons that provided information.

Note- During these meetings Private Individual, Private Individual, Private Individual and Private Individual all advised me of their interest to make all of their previously anonymous statements a matter of public record and part of the landfill amendment assessment process.

On May 14th I contacted Ted Belyea of T & R Contactors to gain more information on what he knew about the issues raised regarding materials in the landfill and any issues regarding construction of the landfill.

The attached Excel spreadsheet was created to summarize key issues raised and actions taken to assess those concerns. The associated detailed notes were placed on file for reference. All information has been presented to or made available the delegate of the Director (Steffanie Warriner) that is adjudicating the landfill amendment.

Key Environmental Issued Raised Re: the Landfill Application & Actions Taken to Evaluate/Resolve the Concerns July 08 update NOTE .The evaluation of concerns involved reviews of: Catalyst's landfill inventory, ministry files, ministry site inspections, all available photos & observations of mini-landfill site workers. Referenced information was provided with the understanding that both the information and the names of those providing it would be a matter of public record.
Information Source	Key Environmental Concern Raised	Actions Taken to Resolve Concerns	Recommended Further Actions Needed to Address Concern

Private Individual	Barrels of "stinky" material placed in land fill	A review of landfill inventories & interviews with Catalyst staff have provided no evidence that barrels of material have been placed in the dump. Contractor Ted Belyea indicated that barrels of solvent dumped in landfill in 1960's but nothing more recently.'	None - existing sampling/monitoring should address the situation with respect to oily materials and other hydrocarbon-based contaminants that a variety of sources indicate may have been put in the dump without permission.
	5-6 transformers stored at site	While a number of individuals indicate they have seen transformers at the dump site, there remains no physical evidence that transformers were placed on site. Landfill inventories, Catalyst staff and contractor Ted Belyea indicated no records or observations that transformers were ever placed in the land fill. Even if transformers were placed in the landfill there is no evidence they would have contaminated with PCBs.	Considering the ongoing sampling other parameters and to err on the side of caution, any permit that may be issued should require periodic PCB monitoring.
	Transformer hit & contents spilled near well 98-4a	As stated above, no physical evidence that transformers were on site or that any had been ruptured in the landfill work.	As stated above, to err on the side of caution, any permit that may be issued should require periodic PCB monitoring.
	Mystery materials stored under silver tarps	Confirmed that tarps covered piles of hydrocarbon contaminated soils that were authorized to be there.	None - existing sampling/monitoring should address this situation
	Batteries, paint cans & oily material dumped	confirmed testing currently being used adequately addresses these issues	None' existing sampling/monitoring should address this situation
	Liner ripped by machinery when laid & covered	Created a time sequence using all available photos and report information to confirm with complainant that what may have been ripped was in fact a geotextile layer and not the critically important landfill liner. George Bryce advised us that he had not ripped the liner when it was laid down the year after Dave Sutton left the landfill site.	None
	wet spot part of underground lake	Photos and reports reviewed confirmed the presence of localized perched aquifers but otherwise normal drainage of the coarse textured soils for the area.	None
	Hydraulic fluid & oil leaking on site from machinery	Catalyst staff and contractor Ted Belyea indicated no records or other observations that this problem occurred. Confirmed current testing regime for the area adequately addresses this issue.	None - existing sampling/monitoring should address the situation with respect to hydrocarbon-based contaminants that a variety of sources indicate may have been put in the dump without permission.
	Smoking & flaming materials dumped into land fill	No other information exists to support this report. Steam from hot ash may have been mistaken for smoke.	None
	Smelly & toxic materials dumped that required a respirator be worn & warning monitor on machine	Catalyst confirmed that there are no WCB reports on file that support this. Contractor Ted Belyea also has no knowledge of this occurring.	None
	Workers told not to take pictures or say anything about what they have seen	Catalyst staff and contractor Ted Belyea advised that they have no knowledge of this occurring and were not aware of workers taking pictures at all.	None
	Asbestos & creosote pilings buried on site	Authorized activities under the permit. Hydrocarbon leachate is monitored under permit.	None - existing permit authorized these materials. Existing sampling/monitoring should address the situation with respect to hydrocarbon-based materials such as cresote.
	Slope below landfill is slipping into the river	Issue dealt with by geoscientists for Golder associates as part of their evaluation of the slope stability associated with the Phase 2 landfill.	None
	Collection pipes broken & filled-up in area of GV-2	Used photo time sequence to confirm that pipes inquestion are for venting gas under landfill cap and not for leachate collection as first reported. No supporting evidence that pipes were broken or burried in that way.	None
	B-8 barrels of wood preservative placed in landfill	After the review of all sources no other information to support this point.	None - existing sampling/monitoring should address the situation with respect to hydrocarbon-based contaminants that a variety of sources indicate may have been put in the dump without permission.
Private Individual	Heard mercury testing not done properly @ landfill	This is hearsay information and reported test approach does not make sense technically . No evidence to support this allegation was obtained.	None
	Full drums and hazardous waste placed in red dumpsters that were dumped at landfill	Company confirmed standard disposal of waste from facility went to licenced contactor (Augusta) site- File, landfill inventory review and interviews with contactor and Catalyst staff found no evidence of improper disposal	None
	Transformers stored at landfill near GV-1 & -2	There remains no physical evidence that transformers were on site despite four persons indicating they saw them there. Landfill inventory & catalyst staff and contractor Ted Belyea provide no indication that transformers were ever placed in the land fill.	Considering the ongoing sampling other parameters and to err on the side of caution, any permit that may be issued should require periodic PCB monitoring.
	Transformers stored outside of the haz waste facility near Gibson's beach	Catalyst identified the only facility in the described area had handled municipal biosolids and photo records that were provided confirm this. No indication that anything other than biosolids stored there.	None
	Creek flowing down from the north side of the landfill towards the Italian hall was missed in the Golder report & should be sampled for toxins	During an April 30th inspection of the landfill site it was confirmed that some water does drain away from the north-western edge of the landfill towards the Italian hall area via a series of drainage ditches.	At the ministry request, Catalyst has completed a broad spectrum analysis of the water for toxins in ditch at the north end of landfill. No significant levels of toxins were found and no ongoing monitoring recommended at this time.
	Need to use sonar or subsurface imaging to look for buried transformers	No information provided on the technology required to do this and if this approach can be teasiby used in this situation.	None
Private Individual	Gooey blue sludge at far western edge of landfill	inspection by ministry staff in the early 1990s confirmed the presence of a bluish sludge that was allowed for under the permit.	None
	Concerned about any plans to remove landfill cap because more toxins will be flushed out of the old land fill and into the river,	Current plans do not involve the removal of the existing cap	None
	Black material seeping out from the hillside near the original Wildwood bridge at water level last seen in 1960's. Not a natural seepage.	Water that is oozing out of this area has now been sampled and is be analyzed for toxins.	Sampling by Golder confirmed the black material in question is natural organic matter. Water samples from the immediate area do not contain problematic levels of toxic materials. No further sampling recommended at this time.

Private Individual	No direct observations of landfill issues but has concerns that are based on information heard from others and problems he has observed with the mill operations	Provided hearsay of alleged compliance problems associated with the operation of the Catalyst mill with the intent of pointing out the lack of trust about the landfill operation due to alleged misconduct with the environmental monitoring program at the mill.	Continue to seek out information to confirm/refute allegations associated with the landfill and will need to initiate a subsequent review of allegations regarding the mills environmental monitoring program.
Private Individual	Section 2.6. of existing permit. With asbestos being disposed of at the landfill makes to whole location a hazardous waste site and accordingly : it is sited too close to residences, a slope prone to failure to a river and other features.	Sect 40. of the Hazardous Waste Regulation allows waste asbestos to be disposed of at the Catalyst landfill. Review of legislation confirmed that by definition site is not a hazardous waste site Slope stability was reviewed and found to be appropriate for Phase 2 landfill as per Golder report.	None
	Section 2.9 of the permit requires contiguous point between mill and land fill and this has not been maintained due to sale of land to P.R.E.	Reviewed contiguous point requirement with legal counsel and confirmed it has still been met	None
PR Legacy Group	A number of persons indicate they have seen transformers at the land fill so there are concerns about PCBs leaking into the water. Last time sampling done 1987.	Confirmed last time PCB sampling done was 1992 and 1995 not 1987 as indicated.	To err on the side of caution, any permit that may be issued should require periodic PCB monitoring.
	Want sonar to be used to look for old transformers	No information provided on if this technology exists or its feasibility to be used in this situation. No proven need to pursue such an activity.	None
	Testing of water in well should be as recommended in the Hatfield report March 2008 on page viii.	Hatfield provided this as an optionsampling approach however, with concentrations in the parts per quadrillion range, the benefit an alternate extraction technique is questionable.	Consider this suggestion if future monitoring results become closer to thresholds where human or environmental health are at risk.
	Need to have updated lake sediment sampling considering the the last sampling was done in 1992	Reviewed the consultant reports and agreed that more sampling is required.	Any permit amendment that may be issues should include lake sediment and fish sampling to determine if background levels are decreasing.
	Review water analysis to evaluate rate of flow and potential for channelling through the bedrock and bypassing of the wells.	Concerns forwarded to hydrogeology consultants retained by Catalyst for their input and confirmation of the potential for this type of problem. Hatfield report reviewed by Ministry hydrologist and no concerns on this matter stated.	None
	Concerns were raised about environmental problems the mill and the way sampling was conducted. This reflects the general distrust of the companies operations.	Point noted but decisions must be made on evidence that pertains to the landfill.	Scrutiny of all information regarding the amendment should be ongoing until decision made. Separate follow-up will occur regarding the way the mill conducted/recorded its air and effluent discharges as well as monitoring activities.
	Need to drill test holes to sample and check for transformers and PCBs	There is conflicting information of whether or not transformers stored and/or buried in the landfill. If they were placed in the landfill no indication of where they may be and whether or not they would have PCBs in them.	Considering the ongoing sampling other parameters and to err on the side of caution, any permit that may be issued should require periodic PCB monitoring.
	Ministry needs to order Catalyst employees that worked the landfill site to testify as to what we did or did not see.	A review of the nature of risk and evidence before the ministry does not support this type of approach.	None
	Need to obtain 1995 Dr. Forgie report with reference to the landfill containing toxic materials and workers needing special protection if it was to be removed etc as per information quoted personally to his <DH).	Reviewed listing of all Forgie reports and reviewed two specific ones (1994 & 95) in MOE files. All available reports pertain to siting for a new landfill and not those of potential hazards associated in the old land fill. Catalyst staff also confirm the quotes provided do not line up with the reports seen to date.	Landfill materials will not be removed so concerns raised are not aplicable to proposed landfill amendment.
	Person will be providing information on systematic deception associated with well water sampling, analysis and reporting.	John Keays is the person referred to and his report was reviewed both internally and externally to verify if it identifies problems with the data collection or anaylsis.	Interpretation taken by Mr. Keays and the Powell River Legacy is not scientifically valid. No further action.
	Need to have third party audits on the fly ash content to ensure they are appropriate.	Confirmed that fly ash is regularly sampled to ensure it is not outside of appropriate parameters	Any permit amendment should consider making a third party sample audit part of the permit requirement.
	As the landfill changes in height and location of active ash deposition, the existing dust collection system will become less effective in accurately measuring the potential for dispersal of dust. There is a need to have the collection devices adjusted in height and location to mainain accurate measurements of dust dispersal.	This issue is valid. The ministry's regional meterologist has confirmed that Catalyst staff have their consultants lloking into this issue, in a closer manner.	Any permit that may be issued should include a procedure to routinely review the placement dust monitoring stations to ensure that potential dispersal is accurately sampled.
	The Catalyst proposed landfill amendment has changed over time. How much is required to trigger a new notification in the paper and a new round of consultation? Are we at that stage with the current amendment?	A switch to a "continuous cover"approach was tabled at last stakeholders meeting but no substantial changes to the proposed plan have been put forth.	No change approach for consultation or notification process expected at this time.

What's New?

New on the website:

Navigation

Industrial Waste Dump

Summary of Follow-up Actions to Complaints by Citizens Regarding The Catalyst Landfill Application

Search


	Community initiative to halt expansion of the local Catalyst industrial waste dump.