New on the website:
- 03/18/2009 - 08:32
- 03/15/2009 - 08:50
- 10/02/2008 - 11:37
- 09/03/2008 - 09:44
- 08/28/2008 - 16:31
- 08/24/2008 - 12:07
- 08/24/2008 - 12:03
What's New?
New on the website:
The Legacy That We Are Preserving (Photos)
»
- Login to post comments
Difference between fly ash and bottom ash?
To Powell River Legacy group:
I saw yesterdays viewpoint in the Peak, and once again I see a statement that the fly ash coming out of Catalyst is no worse than the ash left behind from a wood stove. This seems like a pretty straightforward empirical claim: either the mill's flay ash IS or IS NOT worse than wood stove residue.
Since I'm new to knowing about the landfill, can you point me to whatever you know about the dioxin content of wood stoves ashes, or about the dioxin content of fly ash from the mill's boilers? Or is this a red herring? Isn't it possible to settle this claim one way or another? It's clear that this line is being pushed by the mill as part of their PR campaign. -Along with the claim that demanding that Catalyst adhere to environmental regulations equates to demanding that the mill be closed -- what about following the guidelines AND doing their business? Have we all decided that we have to choose either a functioning mill or a non-toxic town?
Safe Fly Ash?
To Powell River Legacy group:
Hi,
I've heard that fly ash can be safe and can in fact be used in building materials rather than be put into the ground. I understand however, that Catalyst barges and sorts their logs in the ocean thus contaminating the logs with fly ash which makes the fly ash toxic. Is this true? Do you know if Catalyst exploring these alternative options?
Catherine Coupe
Deer Lake, Burnaby B.C.
Letter 37: Fatal flaws in the final Golder report
David Harris,
5939 Dease Court,
Powell River, B.C., V8A 5L8.
June 24, 2007.
Ms. Steffanie Warriner,
Head Business & Standards Unit,
Environmental Management,
B.C. Ministry of Environment,
10470 152 Street,
Surrey, B.C., V3R 0Y3.
RE: Response to Environmental Assessment, Wildwood Landfill Expansion of Catalyst Paper-Powell River Division.
Dear Ms Warriner,
Letter 36: Landfill Standards?
Steffanie Warriner
B.C. Ministry of Environment.
10470 – 152nd St.,
Surrey B.C. V3R OY3
steffanie.warriner@gov.bc.ca
Sale of landfill Property
To the Powell River Legacy group:
I attended the Catalyst stakeholder meeting last week and was surprised to hear of the company's plans to sell the land the landfill occupies, and then lease it back from the purchaser. My concern is, who then owns the liability for the environmental cleanup of the site should leaks or other problems occur five, ten, or twenty years from now? Is the city of Powell River planing to be the purchaser? Does that make all taxpayers responsible for a future bill that could be very costly? This is the first I've heard of a sale of the landfill site, it has not to my knowledge been talked about, but I think it raises some disturbing questions. Thank you for trying to answer some of them.
Questions from a new resident
To Powell River Legacy group:
Hello,
We are here for a few months and own a property on King Ave. We are from the US, but would be willing to sign a petition. Our home is near Los Alamos National Lab, which is one of the US's main toxic problems. There are questions:
Is the new expansion going to follow the highest standard, state of the art containment?
What is the life expectancy of the barrier between the waste and the soil?
What is the plan to move the material once the barrier fails?
What is keeping the material from being air borne?
Is there any way of making the material inert?
Is there support from other parts of the city? My husband and I had a major neighborhood problem in our area of Santa Fe, New Mexico which lasted 6 years. Our neighborhood tried to deal with it ourselves, but in the end it was the lack of city wide support that led to our downfall.
