https://www.facebook.com/people/Concerned-Citizens-of-Baynes-Sound/61565489111834/
Is the Berm Contaminated or Not?
Conflicting Statements and Actions at the Union Bay Shipbreaking Site
The removal of the berm at the Deep Water Recovery (DWR) shipbreaking site in Union Bay has exposed more than just soil — it has exposed serious contradictions that demand public answers.
For years, this berm acted as a physical barrier between heavy industrial activity and neighbouring landowners. Its sudden removal was justified by DWR on the basis that the berm was contaminated. That claim set off a chain of decisions that now raise serious environmental and regulatory concerns.
What DWR Told the Public
DWR publicly stated that the berm was contaminated. This characterization was used to justify:
- Removing the berm entirely
- Relocating the material to the southern portion of the lease
If true, this would mean the berm material required careful handling, containment, and regulatory oversight.
What the Ministry of Environment Required
The BC Ministry of Environment and Parks responded on the assumption that the berm material posed a risk.
According to Ministry inspection records and the 2024 Treatment Plan:
- The berm had generated significant amounts of wood-waste leachate
- Leachate was caused by rainwater percolating through the porous berm
- Approximately 85% of the berm had been relocated
- The Ministry required the relocated berm material to be covered to prevent further leachate from entering Baynes Sound
This requirement was a basic environmental protection measure — and a necessary one, given that Baynes Sound is an Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area (EBSA) and the heart of BC’s shellfish industry.
What Actually Happened
Despite the Ministry’s clear direction:
- The relocated berm material was never covered
- The stockpiled soil remained exposed to rainfall
- Leachate generation therefore continued to be a risk
More concerning still, Ministry records confirm that:
- Berm material was blended with imported sand and fish compost
- The resulting material was treated as “topsoil”
- It was loaded onto a barge and shipped off-site
- This occurred before soil testing and without the legally required soil relocation notification
- The destination of this material was not disclosed
If the berm was contaminated, this material should never have been reused or distributed elsewhere.
A Fundamental Contradiction
These actions present a clear and unavoidable contradiction:
- If the berm was contaminated, it should have been:
- Properly tested before movement
- Fully contained once relocated
- Prohibited from off-site reuse without strict controls
- If the berm was not contaminated, then:
- The public was misled about the reason for its removal
- A protective barrier was removed without justification
- Ministry containment requirements make no sense
Material cannot be both contaminated enough to require removal and clean enough to be reused as landscaping soil.
Why This Matters
This is not an academic or technical dispute.
Leaving leachate-producing material exposed threatens Baynes Sound. Distributing soil that was once described as contaminated raises concerns well beyond Union Bay. And failing to enforce Ministry requirements undermines public confidence in environmental regulation.
The Question That Remains
DWR’s statements and actions cannot both be true.
So the question remains — and it deserves a clear, public answer:
Is the berm contaminated, or not?
Call to Action
The public has a right to transparency and accountability.
We are calling on:
- Deep Water Recovery to clearly and publicly state whether the berm material was contaminated
- The Province of British Columbia to explain why Ministry requirements were not enforced
- Regulators to ensure Baynes Sound and surrounding communities are protected
This issue will not go away through silence.
Share this information. Ask questions. Demand answers.
allthingsunionbay 