An open letter to:
Dear Chair and Board of the Kitimat Stikine Regional District (KSRD)
Residents Advocating for a Safe Inclusive Environment (RAfaSIE) represents approximately 2000+ citizens in the Greater Terrace Area. RAfaSIE held
an open public meeting on November 13, 2014 at the Terrace Public Library to review the recent information presented (in a workshop) to the KSRD Board and public on Nov. 1, 2014. As a result of that meeting we have identified gaps in the new consulting and design work completed for the proposed Forceman Ridge Landfill/Thornhill Transfer Station.
The information presented on Nov. 1, 2014 reveals that some of the public concerns brought forward in the past have been addressed. We thank you for responding to public concern. However there remain a few more issues that we would ask that your team exam in their plans to manage waste here in the Terrace area.
Please consider the following, as you work towards solutions for future landfill and waste management in KSRD Areas E and C:
1. The current proposal does not allow for storm water, long periods of precipitation, and overflow concerns in your waste containment liner. Not addressing this will result in effluent into the ground and waterways, (as has occurred at Prince Rupert’s new landfill) and is not acceptable to the public. How will this be dealt with?
2. The current proposal is cost prohibitive in that transport and double handling of product to go to the Forceman Landfill site increases labor, maintenance, fuel costs and handling costs. This overburdens the taxpayers and is not fiscally responsible. Will you consider revisiting the Thornhill site, (which is planned to remain open anyways) as the site of choice? If not, why not?
3. The current proposal does not address many large volume waste items such as house renovation material, commercial or residential building materials, demolition waste and numerous types of commercial waste. If this is not addressed, where will this go? What is the plan for this waste product?
4. The current proposal does not address furniture and ongoing large household items (like mattresses) and as such encourages illegal dumping. Where will this go? What is the plan for this waste product?
5. The current proposal does not consider the growth of agriculture in the area and subsequent waste that will occur as a result, such as avian and bovine carcasses and potential herbicides and/or pesticides. Where do the 50,000 chickens (who yearly retire) at Daybreak farms go? If this is not addressed, where will these go? What is the plan for this waste product?
6. The current proposal does not have a solution for the disposal of medical waste or biohazard waste. If this is not addressed, where will these go? What is the plan for this waste product?
7. The current proposal identifies an organic element. Will this include a pick of organic waste to all households and will that mean an increase in cost to the taxpayer? As organics make up a large percentile of waste, we are pleased to see proposed plans to generate soil from this product, but with that in mind it would seem appropriate to initialize this plan at the outset of the plan. Why is Curbside beginning without collection of organics? If this is not addressed, where will this go? What is the plan for this waste product?
8. The current proposal will collect cardboard and paper at the transfer site and ship out.
Why is cardboard and paper not shredded and added to organics to make a better blend for future soil use? Reuse of paper products is cost effective, why are we not building a value added industry locally to capture that resource? What is the plan for this waste product?
9. The current proposal does not include glass, despite the fact that it is manageable crushed and can then be used as a cover fill product. Whereas it is otherwise expensive to ship. If this is not addressed, where will this go? What is the plan for this waste product?
10. The current proposal suggests that metals, bottles, plastics, batteries, be recycled at depots. Is there any plan to encourage a one-‐stop drop off site for the community in your discussion with MMBC?
11. What about the additional plastics that are not accepted by recycling depots? Can plastic not be shredded and converted into a re-‐usable product? Where does it go?
What is your plan for this waste product?
12. Tires, batteries, automotive, propane bottles and electronics will be collected at
Thornhill. What happens to these products? Where do they go? What is your plan for this waste product?
13. What about oils, heavy metals, lubricants. Where does that stuff go? What is your plan for this waste product?
14. What about clearing material? Are trees, shrubs, branches and stumps treated the same as yard or kitchen waste? Where does that go? What is your plan for this waste product?
14. With the proposed smaller containment liner (footprint) it would seem possible that the containment of waste would be feasible on the Thornhill Landfill Site. With ongoing remediation required on the Thornhill Site and some concern voiced by the Ministry of Environment for nearby Thornhill Creek, this would seem to be the better solution. We ask that you review Thornhill as the site of choice and determine if a full landfill site could exist there utilizing the full technology of the Forceman Site proposal at Onion Lake Flats and avoiding the polluting of that site, while addressing the effluent concern at the Thornhill Site. Will you revisit the feasibility of that possibility?
15. It is estimated that our proposed landfill will cost upwards of 36 million dollars by 2024, how will this impact on the taxpayer? What will be the cost? As a cost recovery model should the taxpayer not have the right to influence how we collect waste, since we are paying for it? Should we not get the best bang for our buck? Should there not be more than one option? Should we not deal with all aspects of waste on a waste management site? What about all the items that are not yet addressed in your plan? Where do they go? What is your plan for this waste product?
We look forward to your response.
Diana Penner for