Re: Spreading Mill Waste

[philip@prcn.org (Philip Fleischer)]

I recieved the following message, as a 'clarifying' response to a
posting I made to these lists.  I am forwarding this message and
following it with a response.  My original posting is available in
the dioxin-l archives or on request from me.

The real issue here is public awareness and the permit process.  I
was not nor do I wish to make specific accusations about particular
MacMillan Bloedel employees sneaking things through the system or
particular employees of the BC Ministry of Environment allowing
things to be sneaked through.  I must persist however in criticizing
the process for allowing pollution to be spread on people without
their informed consent.  This particular permit is a case in point
with specific details which we can examine here.


>
>X-POP3-Rcpt: philip@caspian
>Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:22:36 -0700
>From: Drew Kilback <dkilback@prcn.org>
>Organization: MacMillan Bloedel
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: philip@prcn.org
>CC: dkilback@prcn.org
>Subject: Spreading Mill Waste
>
>Dear Philip:
>
>I would like to clarify a number of points in your newsgroup message below
>on our waste recycling
>program.
>
>1. We did not "withdraw" our application after hearing the concerns from
>local residents. Through
>discussions with BCE we agreed to accept a permit that would address the
>waste lime and grate ash
>only. The sludge program would not be considered until the dioxin/furan
>content was substantially
>reduced.
>2.BCE approved a permit for the small scale trials involving grate ash and
>waste lime on Aug. 21.
>If you would like a copy of this please let me know.
>3. We do not attempt to "sneak through" permit applications. In fact, this
>particular application
>was published in the PR News on Nov. 27, 1995 and the B.C. Gazette on Nov.
>30, 1995. In addition,
>copies of the application were provided to:
>Wildwood Ratepayers Association
>Sliammon Native Band
>Powell River Regional District Waste Management Committee
>Concerned Citizens Coalition
>Local 1 and Local 76 CEP
>This list is in addition to the normal permit application circulation list
>which BCE follows.
>This includes the Powell River Regional District, P.R. Municipality,
>Ministry's of Health and
>Forests, Environment Canada and others.
>
>Actually, we go to great lengths to ensure as many groups as possible are
>informed of these
>developments. In the future you can contact us here for such information
>which we will gladly
>provide.
>
>Regards,
>
>Drew
>
[original message quoted]
>

I will not dispute that the official required notice of permit
application was published as stated in November of 1995 or that
copies of the application were provided at some time or other
to the groups listed.

I will re-assert that many people in the community, including myself,
who do try to watch for such developments were 'surprised' to learn
in May of 1996 that a complex and unusual permit was in the late
approval stages which would result in trials of various mill wastes
being applied to several tracts of land in the municipality of Powell
River.

That MacMillan Bloedel monitors, or has some agency monitor for them,
the dioxin-l mailing list indicates the great lengths they go to
learn what dioxin activists are talking about.  If they were to go to
equivalent lengths to inform 'as many groups as possible', they would
post permit applications to dioxin-l, or post to a website all
permits (applied for and pending).  If MacMillan Bloedel were to go
to just moderate lengths to inform groups then they would have
presented the permit application at the Millwatch workshop in which
they participated in April of 1996.  Certainly many interested
environmentalists were there, many of whom were 'surprised' to learn
that the land spread permit was in the late stages of approval in May
of 1996.

As soon as I knew details of the permit application (May 1996), I
reviewed it and sent my criticisms and questions to the Ministry,
emailing a copy to Drew Kilback of MB at the same time.

Objections to the application, mine and other peoples, included not
simply objection to the high dioxin content of the sludge but
objections to the grate ash (contaminated with low levels of dioxins)
as well.  Errors and problems with their presentation of chemical
analysis of the wastes were pointed out.  I asked to see the actual
certificates of analysis for the wastes.  These were never provided.

MB held an openhouse presentation on spreading mill waste to land in
June of 1996 just before which they had announced that they were
no longer asking for a permit to include the spreading of sludge.  I
do remember the word 'withdrawn' being used, but, it is rarely useful
to be concerned about the use or non-use of any single word.  A
propaganda system exploits contexts generally more than single words.

At that openhouse I asked (for the third time) to see certificates of
analysis and I also asked specifically for a written copy of a new or
any revised permit application. I asked Drew Kilback for this.  I
also asked Ray Robb of the BC Ministry of Environment and several
employees of PGL Organix if I could have a copy of a revision or any
applicable documentation.  I recieved nothing.

On August 12, I recieved a letter from Drew Kilback of MB which did
contain some additional chemical data, though no actual certificates
of analysis.  It cited some PAH levels which I had asked about but had
not been included in the original permit application.  It included
some 'new to me' measurements of contaminants in all materials
including phthalate levels which put the sludge and grate ash above
US Dept of Health Minimal Risk level.  The letter also said their
next step would be to seek Ministry approval for the waste lime and
grate ash field trials.

I have never recieved any revised permit application or similar.
Perhaps the 'revison' was an entirely verbal exchange between the
Ministry and MB.  If so that itself is quite a comment on the permit
process.

Anyway, I am informed now that a permit was approved on August 21.

I do not believe, nor do several others in the community, that we
have been informed in a timely and complete manner about this permit,
that our questions have been answered or our concerns addressed.




















Philip Fleischer   philip@prcn.org