|
New Crofton mill health impact assessment urged |
|
|
|
Island Tides
Vol 17 Number 18
September 22-October 5, 2005
A subcommittee of the Crofton pulpmill’sCommunity Advisory Forum
hasrecommended that an air dispersionmodelling study be redone and that
a fullbaseline human health risk assessment of Crofton mill be conducted.
The subcommittee’s September 15 recommendation came after
its consideration of a 2004 study conductedby mill owner NorskeCanada
and twosubsequent peer reviews.
The peer reviews of the mill commissionedstudy (‘Baseline Air
QualityModelling and Human Health RiskAssessment of Current Day
Emissions fromNorskeCanada Crofton Division’) wereconducted by
representatives from union, environment and First Nations sectors.
This peer review recognized a fundamental disconnect between original
expectationsfor the study and what the study was, in fact,designed to
investigate.
The forum subcommittee comments that at a public meeting on May 19,
JacquesWhitford Consultants, who conducted the original study, agreed
that it did not constitute a baseline human health risk assessment, nor
was it ever intended to.The second peer review, commissioned by the
Crofton Airshed Citizens Group and‘Reach for Unbleached,’ found
many deficiencies with the study ranging from the emissions inventory at
the beginning of the study to the lack of adherence to generally accepted
risk assessment principals and guidelines.
‘We have looked at this critically with an eye to seeing what we could
salvage from what has already been done,’ said Patti Bauer, environmental
representative on the subcommittee. ‘If we are really interested
in measuring the health impact of the mill, then the only reasonable
course of action is to go back and re-do this study with a proper and
agreed terms of reference.
‘It is critical that as a community, we understand what the current
impact of the mill is. Only then can we begin to address the best
possible practices and technologies to safeguard the health of
the population and minimize impact on the environment. Only then do we
have a reference point for what the consequences in any proposals, such
as alternatives fuels, could be.’
The recommendation was received by the forum and will be considered at the next meeting on October 18.
|
In the News