Taking the easy way out?

To Powell River Legacy group:

I think these protesters and petitioners are just taking the easy way out. They are not true environmentalis’s but likely people with an axe to grind about things in general, likely they wouldn’t be happy no matter where they parked their butts. If it isn’t one thing it would be another with them, I know some of them and they’ve been hard to get along with as long as I’ve known them. When I say their taking the easy way out I mean that we don’t have pollution problems to speak of, the Mill has gone to great lengths to clean things up, we have a state of the art boiler and technology in it, Why don’t you all go somewhere like Toronto where people are choking on the air, or better yet take a trip to China or any other number of Countries where they puke waste into the rivers and don’t treat any or hardly any of it. If you were real true enviromentalists you would go where there is really a problem, instead of making them up where there are none. The uninformed looking at your Website may think you know what your talking about and get mislead, you claim things like they are facts and you really don’t know what your on about. If the Mill ever closed it mean a drastic raise in taxes to all of us, more buildings could be shut down, roofs taken off, no taxes to be paid on them anymore. I would like to call upon everyone who supports the Mill and it’s workers and it’s efforts to employ people, and local businesses while it’s in a competitive tight market, to make their own minds up about whether they will continue to do business with the Businesses that have the Petitions in them and the Businesses whose owners have signed the Petition. To see the list of Stores where the Petition is, and those who are on the Petition List that own businesses go to prlegacy.org

This is what The Mill does for Powell River.

Supporting the local economy

More than 650 employees

Pays $74.8 million annually in wages and benefits

Mill employment supports 680 jobs within the community

Pays $6.1 million in annual property taxes

Spends $8.6 million annually on local goods and services

Involved in the community

Donates $80,000 annually ($10,000 to United Way) to local programs and organizations

Catalyst offers local students $6,000 in scholarships

C.E.P. Local 76 offers local students $4,000 in scholarships. Annual Donations of $2000.00 food bank,$2000.00 United Way, PR Minor Hockey, Soccer, Baseball, PR Legion. We also receive requests each month for donations which are looked at on a case by case basis. Logger Sports, Disability Games, ETC:

Employee fundraising includes $95,000 for United Way; $4,800 for the local food bank

Each and every organization in Powell River have Volunteers involved who work in the Mill

Kathaumixw and The Powell River Academy of Music, where would they be without the support of Catalyst and its Employees?

Quik Facts!

1. Wildwood Ratepayers input on the site selection process: They chose the spot!
2. The cost of going back to Rabanco is the equivalent to 17 fulltime jobs
3. Results from multiple methods of testing for dust: No dust!
4. Results from the 2006 (and past) mini-landfill annual report: No leaks!
5. Results from routine testing of our flyash: Not a hazardous waste!
6. Why we might run our Power Boiler at 100% MCR: Better use of green energy!
7. Past response to complaints for odor: $5.5M spent on Primary Clarifier bypass!

From Jerome Desilets Powell River BC

Reply 1 from the PR Legacy group:

1. ..."not true environmentalists"... "taking the easy way out"... "and should go where there are REAL problems”.

If you are referring to the loosely structured group known as PR Legacy, then yes you are correct.  We are not “true environmentalists", and have never claimed to be.  What we are is a growing group of deeply concerned local citizens who are simply dealing with the situation we find ourselves in, due to the obvious dangers of an industrial waste dump right in our neighborhood.  We are longtime residents, (including some ex-millworkers) and some newcomers who have had our fill of toxic waste, and are simply sick and tired of this situation.

We are not LOOKING for problems here or in other areas to solve as environmentalists, as much as simply doing our best to deal with the problems that we find ourselves confronted with in our own frontyard.

We are not “taking the easy way out” as you claim.  What we ARE doing, is trying to help solve our mutual problems, so as to leave an honorable legacy behind us.  We will not be poisoned, and we will not allow our children and children’s children to be poisoned.

2. Regarding your call for a boycott. You said:

I would like to call upon everyone who supports the Mill and it’s workers and it’s efforts to employ people, and local businesses while it’s in a competitive tight market, to make their own minds up about whether they will continue to do business with the Businesses that have the Petitions in them and the Businesses whose owners have signed the Petition. To see the list of Stores where the Petition is, and those who are on the Petition List that own businesses go to prlegacy.org

We received the following comment yesterday on this website:

Petition and Boycott:
I was going over your Petition List and a lot of the names are not even in the phone book we have launched a boycott against the businesses that are supporting your petition
from Jerome Desilets

Just to clarify some points for you.

a. Not everyone in this town chooses to be listed in the phonebook.  Also, the online petition was open to more people than just local residents.  In fact there were people signing it from all over the world.

b. Recently, we’ve had some disturbing requests by local people, to have their names removed from the petition.  It seems that there was some intimidation involved.  So as a service to local people who certainly never imagined that they would be subjected to bullying tactics, we’ve removed the online-petition.  It has run its course, and has served its purpose.

3. We applaud Catalyst and any other local business who is supportive of the community. 

But good corporate citizens don’t poison their neighbourhood Jerome. Handing out scholarships won’t undo the damage. Benevolent actions in a community don't excuse irresponsible environmental policies.

Reply 2 from the PR Legacy group:

Dear J,

May I respond to some of the things you mention in your wide ranging letter.

Since the local Catalyst administration has publicly stated that I "proposed the solution", I think I can give you some information which you do not seem to have available. You have an item headed "Quik Facts!" which certainly are not "facts". Also, these items appear to be written by Catalyst as there is often mention of "our flyash". There is nothing wrong with that if you also agree with what is being said.

Another quick point - Would it not be more accurate to use the number of jobs which Catalyst has committed to [534 jobs] rather than use a number which Catalyst says is too high and must be reduced.

1) "Wildwood Ratepayers input on the site selection process: They chose the spot!"

Not so.

May I replay some history.

The idea of investigating the use of this site to hold more flyash, first arose as one of several alternatives that I mentioned tin a meeting with the mill manager and the then manager of environment . There were four people at that meeting which was to discuss alternatives to another very flawed landfill proposal that Catalyst was contemplating.

This was one of several options discussed. My notes from the meeting show that we mentioned that there were "two plusses" for this option ---it alienated no further land for a landfill, and it already had a leachate collection system in place which could be upgraded. A neutral item was that there were permits in place but no one knew how new ones would need to be done. Also, in my notes, "several negatives" were mentioned--including the proximity of neighbors. So the flyash would have to be held back and continuously covered. Also mentioned were the need to build a containment system to hold the flyash, and a solution to the dust problems associated with flyash would need to be found.

Mentioned too, were the visual aspects of the site. It was proposed that by keeping the ash covered and very quickly planting a cover over any part of the landfill which was not in active service, the visual impact would be lessened. The dangers of an earthquake were mentioned and acknowledged. The possibility of a further expansion towards the rockface was mentioned --to make the site blend in with the local topography and minimize its impact. Also mentioned at this meeting was the idea of mixing the flyash with water to form a slurry and hopefully go some distance towards minimizing the dust that was leaving the landfill. This was really a side discussion.

Much of the meeting was taken up with various options that Catalyst could pursue to find a use for the fly ash, and not landfill siting at all. At the end of the meeting, only passing reference was made to the present landfill site except to say that there were lots of problems with the site which would need to be solved.

In a letter I wrote the mill in October 2005, I mention this site as having advantages over the site that was then being proposed. Also in my letter are clear references to having the "waste encapsulated ( poured into blocks and piled)...to reduce the surface area...to reduce the amount of ash which can be blown from the site". Also in that letter is the need to provide "...moveable screening to 'contain' the industrial process involved and prevent wind and water dispersion". Most of that letter involved strategies to find a use for the fly ash.

Shortly after that, a senior manager of Catalyst came to talk to the Wildwood Ratepayers. Most of the discussion concerned a different site and almost no reference was made to using the existing site.

One result of that public meeting, was a delegation of six Wildwood Ratepayer members meeting with Catalyst in their boardroom. This was in early 2006. The point of discussion at that meeting was still the site which Catalyst had been proposing for a landfill. We were clear that the existing site was unsuitable for a landfill. Almost as an after-thought, the mill manager mentioned that the company was considering using the existing landfill and mounding up the flyash higher on the existing mini-landfill, much as the company had proposed to do about four years before. The clear reference in the minutes is that the company would be getting just about 7 years of added capacity. Almost immediately several of our group questioned the stability of the site, and mentioned the need for some sort of containment system, and mention was made of the close proximity to nearby houses and the dust problem. At that meeting, it was mentioned that it might be better for the company to go closer to the rock face itself and stay away from the area that is close to the houses. The company acknowledged that it would be a concern for them as well, and that this was to be a temporary solution till a more permanent site could be found. The company also said that the Wildwood Ratepayers would be consulted regularly and kept informed. As an afterthought, the environmental manager announced that the company had bought 'Ashley', the cement truck to make a slurry of the fly ash. We were all quite excited at the prospect of 'solving' the dust problem. One of our members asked how long the ash stayed as a solid, and no one knew.

And that was it. Some time after that, the company made its decision to go with the existing landfill site. Again the company mentioned that before any plans were firmly in place, they would consult with the Wildwood Ratepayers. Some informal chatter on the email took place ----my records show an increasing amount of skepticism on our part which was conveyed to the company --often in the form of questions. Most of the responses from the company were ones of reassurance and "don't worry, we'll let you know in due time." A
guided tour of the landfill with the system of making the slurry and dropping it into the landfill was arranged. Very few questions were answered. And this led up to the open house of April 18th. By then we were very concerned that the plans presented would be poorly thought out. Unfortunately, the plans for the landfill and the supporting documentation was even worse than we had suspected.

That doesn't sound much like the Wildwood Ratepayers, or I, chose the spot.

2) "The cost of going back to Rebanco is the equivalent to 17 fulltime jobs"

Not all the costs of dealing with the flyash are in transportation alone. The present costs of handling the flyash are probably very near or higher than transporting it to Rebanco. With the focus of the company on the bottom line, it concerns us just how long the current method will be used.

Please don't get me wrong---I am very glad that the company has seen it to their advantage to make the flyash into a slurry. It is certainly much better than what was done before. It has gone a very long way to improve the dust situation. But there still is a problem. There have been only half-measures so far, and dust can still escape with current management practices. There is still a long way to go and none of this is mentioned in the company's written proposal.

3) "Results from multiple methods of testing for dust: No dust!"

Not so.

In the Golder Report levels of dust were found ---
--- even though the period measured had rain or ground fog for about 2/3 of the time,
--- even though the monitors were turned off during the one lengthy dry period of over 2 weeks,
--- even though much of the test was in September and October [ not our dry time here],
--- even though the four monitors were placed in areas which had little air passage,
--- even though the four monitors were of a type that only tested a portion of the known dust associated with fly ash.

The company has even acknowledged that the dust study was flawed and is redoing it.
There is something odd about seeing a dust collecting device in the middle of a rainfall.

4) "Results from the 2006 (and past) mini-landfill annual report: No leaks!"

Not so.

The results from the mini-landfill report in fact show that there is a significant and persistent amount of contamination entering Powell River. If there were no liquid escaping the present site, no contamination would enter the environment. Yet there is a pattern of contamination being detected in the water that enters the mill at its filter-house. This is a regular result of the tests at this site which show contamination that could only be the result of leachate escaping this landfill site. And when you consider the massive amounts of water that pass over the dam and through the generator each day --something like 100,000 cubic meters ---the source of pollution must be significant indeed for it to even show up.

Also, the regular testing on the monitoring and collecting wells, show that there are some wells that show significant levels of all sorts of nasty substances. The mill acknowledges that 2,398 cubic meters of leachate is collected from these wells which are at the edge of the landfill. Also, the mill's consulting engineer estimates a similar amount (2,398 cubic meters) escapes from this area each year.

Also, the mill views the amount of leachate which is actually pumped from the mini-landfill as being proprietary information, and does not release those numbers ---not even to B.C. Ministry of Environment.
No leaks? ---the company controls the information.

Also, there is no monitoring of water in the regional water table deep below the landfill, nor is there monitoring of water in the layer of fractured rock beneath the landfill.

5) "Results from routine testing of our flyash: Not a hazardous waste!"

At last, you are partly right.

There is a legal definition of what constitutes a "hazardous waste", and according to that definition, the mill's flyash isn't a hazardous waste. But that doesn't mean it isn't a hazard to health. It is. Here's why:

Flyash in any form is made up of very tiny particles which tend to have a very smooth shape--much like tiny ball bearings [it is this characteristic that makes fly ash a good additive to cement --making it flow more easily and also increasing the density ]. Once in the lungs, the tiny particles are both too small and too smooth to be expelled. It doesn't take long to affect the efficiency of the lungs which can lead to emphysema. This is a great concern for the young, the old, and people with other health problems.

Plus this flyash carries dioxins and furans on the flyash particles. These dioxins and furans are mainly there as a result of burning salt-laden wood. There is no safe limit of dioxins or furans. Even one molecule, lodged in a sensitive spot, can cause cancer.

6) "Why we might run our Power Boiler at 100% MCR: Better use of green energy!"

This is a judgment call. Good luck to you.. But know that it is not to make better or more paper, but rather, the increased firing rate is to make more power to sell. This is for the generation of electricity as a product.

7) "Past response to complaints for odor: $5.5M spent on Primary Clarifier bypass!"

Thank you.

Even though you also benefit from other efficiencies due to this effort, it is much appreciated., thanks again. But how long will it last since you have so drastically cut back on the use of limestone in the various boiler processes?

go well, Dave Harris