Treatment options
In the February 9 edition of the Peak, the side bar “Treatment options” with the article “Consultation plan goes back to staff” gave a useful summary of the treatment options being considered. This information will help people understand the issues. However, there was information missed that is essential to understanding all the ramifications of the options.
The co-treatment option includes plans to deal with shutdowns at the mill. Short-term maintenance shutdowns of longer than three to five days require that the mill effluent treatment system also be shut down. Without the volume of waste water from the mill, its effluent treatment will not work and City of Powell River sewage will not be treated for many days. To deal with this, screened but otherwise untreated raw sewage will be stored in the open primary clarifier below Marine Avenue in Townsite, right across from the front yards of heritage homes. Further, if the mill shutdown goes too long for the old clarifier to contain all the city sewage, the raw sewage will be dumped directly into the sea if the city can obtain a permit to do so.
If the mill should close permanently, the city will have to immediately build a facility to replace the mill’s treatment plant. Further, building a new facility close to the planned pre-treatment plant or in the old clarifier will leave this city with two schools and a significant residential area contending with the stench of sewage in their front yards. And why will a city-built facility smell? It is important to note that the plans for a treatment facility to be built by the city in any of the options will be an open oxidation ditch. No other more advanced, odour containing technology is being considered by council at this time.
The decision to use oxidation ditch technology was made in stage two of the planning process completed in 2005. The rest of this information is taken from the Dayton and Knight Draft #2 Liquid Waste Management Plan.
Judy Watts
Marine Avenue
Industry is the solution
David Moore’s statement “Bark beetles and their babies should not be feared or scorned...” [“Industrial bugs,” February 2] does not bear in mind recent history or scientific fact. Where has Moore been for the last 10 years while BC endured the mountain pine beetle epidemic? By all accounts it was, by far, the worst biological disaster in Canadian history.
The pine beetle infestation caused billions of pine trees to die in BC. A significant portion of this timber was situated in areas that have never seen a chainsaw. Ministry of forests, mines and lands data indicates 85 per cent of BC’s total area has never been, nor ever will be, logged.
My understanding is, the pine beetle got away due to timid remediation efforts by the minister when the infestation began in a provincial park. Ministry representatives apparently chose not to incur the wrath of David Suzuki fans so they did not clear cut to eradicate beetles when the outbreak began.
The current fir beetle outbreak is the result of a wind event in 2006. It downed approximately 140,000 cubic metres (3,500 logging-truck loads) in Western Forest Products’ tree farm licence 39, Powell River. Approximately 100,000 cubic metres of that blowdown was salvage logged. The other 40,000 cubic metres was inaccessible and ended up as bait for bugs we are now dealing with in this area. Western has awarded contracts to control the problem.
To say that forest workers and the forest ministry caused this infestation is without foundation. Propagation of Moore’s type of misinformation has poisoned the minds of BC residents against the logging community. For some people, neither truth nor facts will convince them that our natural resources are to be managed for the greatest good. Critics too often forget that salaries for teachers, ferry workers, hospital staff are paid by tax dollars generated from logging. At least three trees are planted for each one logged in BC. Timber is a renewable resource. Let’s be smart and cut, plant and grow trees that prosper future generations with incomes and tax-funded amenities we all appreciate.
Eric Hein
Marine Avenue
Turning a blind eye
Recently local residents paid for independent water testing at springs located below the Wildwood landfill. These tests revealed high levels of several metals, including uranium, that exceed drinking water standards. I was pleased to see that the independent water testing was reported by the Peak [“Landfill opponents undertake water tests,” February 16].
The ministry of environment has taken, what is in my opinion, an absurd position. It seems to be disregarding the information presented to it because the methodology and standards are not exactly as specified by its department in the landfill permit. It is taking this position despite that the tests conducted are the same as those used by our government to test drinking water. I find it shocking that the ministry wouldn’t simply do the common sense thing for residents’ peace of mind and retest the sites using the appropriate methodology and standards. Its tests would then validate or refute the information brought forward by citizens. Instead it is “examining” the information.
Ministry staff seems to be once again defending Catalyst Paper Corporation’s landfill rather than supporting voters. It explains away uranium found in the springs by saying that some rocks in the natural environment emit uranium. Interestingly, it avoided saying whether such rocks can be found in the Powell River area.
I urge every Powell River resident to write to Minister Murray Coell as well as his staff and demand they test the springs below the landfill. Here’s some contact information:
Minister of environment, Murray Coell, can be contacted at PO Box 9047, STN Prov Govt, Victoria, BC, V8W 9E2. His email address is [email protected] and phone number 250.387.1187.
Shelley Metcalfe is the environmental protection officer and her email address is [email protected], phone number 604.582.5332.
Hossein Lohrasebi is also an environmental protection officer. His email address is [email protected] and phone number 604.582.5315.
Cassandra Caunce is section head for business and standards unit, ministry of environment. Her email address is [email protected] and phone number 604.582.5299.
Alison Taplay
King Avenue
Action required on assurances
At the February 22 Water Watch public meeting, City of Powell River Councillor Chris McNaughton assured the large audience that new, innovative options could be considered. This is perhaps shocking ignorance, deliberate deception or a welcome break from the process to date [“Co-treatment debate heats up,” March 2].
The first obstacle is the application for funding for co-treatment. This official document states that consultation has been completed, co-treatment has been chosen and work will begin in April. No meaningful discussion of other options can take place as long as that application stands.
The second obstacle is the report created by Dayton and Knight Ltd. The matrix that will determine the option chosen ranks only the four options laid out in this report: oxidation ditches at the waste transfer site, the existing Townsite plant site or the old primary clarifier site, and co-treatment. The matrix is already being completed by staff and consultants. The final section will be completed by the joint local-technical liquid waste management advisory committee. Again, there is no room for discussion of other options inside this process.
It is also a fact that council has chosen to include co-treatment in this year’s budget, so as to be clear on its intentions. It was recommended that the wording change to include other possibilities, and council chose not to.
For McNaughton’s statement to be true, council must now be planning to withdraw the application for funding and the Dayton and Knight report. Will the councillor follow up? We look forward to positive action, rather than just more empty words.
Merrilee Prior
Willow Avenue
Delay goes against Act
The Peak’s February 16 editorial on the subject of misread medical images [“Scan scam”] stated that the public wasn’t informed in October when officials learned of the situation. Regardless of what the officials thought was the appropriate course of action, the BC Freedom of Information Act (Section 25) requires them to inform the public of such incidents “without delay.” It is obvious that waiting approximately four months does not meet any definition of “without delay.” Thus, in my view, the legislation obligated the officials to inform the public immediately in October.
Fred G. Peet
Brentwood Bay, BC
