Facts

To Powell River Legacy group:

I can't help but notice that in your basic fact section you haven't included any numbers that show the actual concentration levels of fly ash in the air in and around the landfill at any given time. Fly ash continues to be disposed of there, so you must have air quality numbers that you are very concerned about.

I am very curious to know what these numbers are and how long an average person would have before their health start to fail them while living in Wildwood. This seems like an extremely important fact that you have missed.

Posting these concentration level numbers on this website would be helpful for everyone who is concerned about this issue. It is very frustrating reading letter after letter of people opposing the landfill with no proof to back them up. Everyone has an opinion, but facts are facts.

Thanks for your time.

Reply 1 from the PR Legacy group:

You're right.  We have no numbers to post.   We are an ad hoc citizens group without the financial capability to undertake a dustfall study adequate to the task of proving or disproving the movement of dust off the landfill.  It is information in the Golder "Environmental Assessment Report" we are referring to including inaccurate statements made in it, which are the cause of our concerns.  As well, questions were asked about the dustfall study and wind study at a meeting of the Wildwood Ratepayers Association attended by Brian Baarda and Dr. Sarah Barkowski from the Catalyst mill.  They both agreed that the studies were poorly done and that they too were dissatisfied.

We have posted a link to the Golder "Environmental Assessment Report" on the Catalyst web site which contains information as 'facts' as well as information pointing out inaccuracies of those 'facts' as presented.  Letter 31 posted on this website will direct you to the specific section of the Golder report relating to the dustfall study and points out some of its limitations.  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 and--- 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 ------and even though the four monitors were of a  type that only tested a portion of  the known dust associated with fly ash.

The landfill site has a history which includes dust leaving the landfill site and ending up all over Wildwood.  This is what led to the mill shipping the ash to Rebanco in the first place.  The measurements for dust recovery are for the existing site which is at ground level.  The proposal is for a vertical expansion 20 metres high (this has never been done before, anywhere) with exposed faces hundreds of feet wide and Brian Baarda & Dr. Barkowski have refused a study to include the abraidable effects of wind and rain on the slurried ash.

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, they are both too small and too smooth to be expelled. It doesn't t  take long to affect the efficiency of the lungs which can lead to emphysema. This is also 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.

The parameters for the dustfall study are incomplete as well because it is intended to measure only "nuisance dust" omitting any study of health effects.

Thank you for taking the time to write.  I invite you to research the information above which is factual, to the best of my knowledge, and correct me if I have it wrong.  I will also ask you whether you would, if you had a choice, accept such an uncertain mountain on a hill in front of your neighbourhood?

Reply to the PR Legacy group:

Thanks for answering my question. I don't disagree with the facts that you mention, but you say that in the past that dust ended up all over Wildwood. This was the past when they didn't add water to the flyash. If they didn't add the water, yes I would be concerned about it, but the flyash/water mixture they will be dumping now hardens up like concrete, unlike the past (and is not toxic or hazardous). It may be a good idea for everyone opposing this landfill to donate their money to get the proper air quality testing completed so they know exactly what they are dealing with.

Would I accept this landfill in my neighbourhood? If there was no proof of the landfill doing me any harm, and it wasn't an eyesore (which I don't think it is or will be), I would have no problem at all if it were in my backyard, especially knowing how beneficial it would be for the future of the mill and it's employees. In my opinion, breathing in car exhaust while going for a walk, or choking on smoke from backyard burning are real health hazards.

Reply 2 from the PR Legacy group:

Thank you for your continued attention to this whole question.

You are right when you refer to the days when the fly ash was transported and dumped in a dry state as being times when the dust was all over Wildwood. Those were times that we all hope never to repeat. Now that the fly ash is transported and deposited as a slurry, the dust problem is much less. ...but not gone yet.

Now there are times when there is still dust leaving the landfill site. In fact one such time was witnessed by no less than the mill manager. An excavator was in the dump site, moving the "solidified flyash" and he, as well as many others, saw a plume of flyash being formed from the solids moved. It looked much like a car going down a gravel road at great speed. The mill manager soon put a stop to that, but we don't all have the power of the mill manager. [Another interesting point is that the air monitor which is across the street from the landfill, and is supposed to collect particles from the air, registered nothing, even though a clearly defined plume of dust was seen to be leaving the landfill site.]

As mentioned, the solidified fly ash is much less prone to dust than the dry flyash. It behaves a bit like cement, but is not cement. It is more like a fine clay soil---as long as there is plenty of moisture and it remains undisturbed, it doesn't make much dust. But put it in the sun and dry it out, and you could be looking at a set for a western movie of a dust storm. I've already mentioned two factors which influence the formation of dust from the solidified slurry:

1) Continued need for moisture and
2) Not being disturbed or abraded.
3) Another factors is the amount of limestone which is introduced in the various processes in the mill and in the boiler itself. The presence of calcium in the fly ash increases the likelihood of forming a cementatious product. Unfortunately we have been told that the amount of limestone being introduced into the boiler has been drastically cut back. in an attempt to reduce costs. This will affect the permanence and hardness of the fly ash being dumped. Also,
4) The amount of water added to the fly ash has a direct effect on the product formed. There is very little knowledge about the limits and characteristics of various flyash / water ratios. And if that weren't enough, we also know that the nature of the slurry and solid formed changes with
5) The temperature in the boiler , and
6) The pass through time in the boiler, and
7) The nature of the fuel being burned.

Another concern is the costs involved. The present system, though much better than the old way, is much more expensive. The costs involved in making a slurry in cement trucks are probably comparable or in excess of sending the ash to Rebanco. If you factor in the loss of space within the mini-landfill where the waste from the kraft mill are anticipated to be dumped, the costs are definitely more than sending the flyash to Rebanco. That worries me. This company has been consistent in only one thing--cost cutting. How long will the mixing of water to the fly ash continue once a new permit is in place?

While we are on the subject of dust--have you looked at 'Ashley' and "Reggie" lately? Do you wonder where the ash that was on these trucks is now? Have you ever been behind the truck when the wind decided to clean the ash off the trucks?

As for the expansion of the landfill not having a visual effect---you are kidding aren't you? Have you ever driven beside B.C. Place? Have you not seen it when you are beside it? The landfill will be significantly higher and larger than B.C. Place---one similarity will be that it won't have trees growing on it either.

If there is a benefit to be had by the local mill from the fly ash, it will be to find a use for it and sell it---it would even cost-effective if they gave it away. But for that the mill will need to do some serious research. There is a solution to the flyash problem, it is in using it.

A landfill is a memorial to failed industrial processes, as well as a lasting problem to the environment.