|
|
|
Michael Ableman's Response to Don Maroc's column |
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2004
- "Mr. Maroc is correct when he says that "pulp and paper mills are not
pristine ecological events. They utilize some pretty nasty industrial
chemicals". He is absolutely wrong that Norske "capture and reuse
every molecule they can".
Reponse by Michael Ableman to Don Maroc's column
February 20, 2004
Dear Editor -
I am pleased that Don Maroc has taken the time to address Norske's
Crofton Mill pollution in his column (February 18, 2004). I would
like to correct him, however, on several fundamental points.
1) The "tests" that Mr. Maroc mentions in the first paragraph of his
column are proposed for a period two and a half years, hardly a
"test", more a long term experiment. Because there is absolutely no
independent baseline study in place for current mill emissions, nor
has any risk analysis been done there is no way to evaluate whether
these "alternative fuels" will be an improvement or a continued
degradation of regional air quality.
2) The Crofton Airshed Citizens Group is not "led mainly by folks
from Salt Spring and Cortes Islands" as Mr. Maroc states. There is no
one from Cortes Island who takes part in our weekly group meetings,
or who is involved with directing the group's activities. The group
is made up of residents of Crofton, Duncan, Maple Bay, Chemainus and
Salt Spring Island. Meteorological data shows that Salt Spring
Island receives a significant dose of the mill's air pollution. If
Mr. Maroc is correct that "living on Salt Spring they do not benefit
economically from the pulp mill as we do in the Cowichan Valley", why
is it that Crofton, one of the most beautiful coastal towns in the
region, has the most depressed real estate market in the entire
region while Salt Spring has one of the highest?
3) I did not move into the Crofton airshed "recently" as Mr. Maroc
says, I moved here almost five years ago. "Recent" and "long-term"
are relative; the only folks who should have the right to use
"long-term" are our First Nations people. I have never implied or
suggested that we "shut down the mill", the only folks who have
suggested that are the mill's managers whose statements imply that we
have to make a choice between jobs and health. We have the right to
both. Why are so many mill employees coming forward with
confirmation of problems with the Crofton facility? Is it possible
that they recognize that their family's health may be as important as
their jobs?
4) Mr. Maroc is correct when he says that "pulp and paper mills are
not pristine ecological events. They utilize some pretty nasty
industrial chemicals". He is absolutely wrong that Norske "capture
and reuse every molecule they can". In fact, based on the company's
own reports, every day approximately 24 million cubic meters of
exhaust gasses come from the Crofton pulp mill, carrying with them a
tonne of fine particulate matter, a tonne of volatile organic
compounds, two tonnes of hydrochloric acid, three and a half tonnes
of sulphur dioxide, one and a half tonnes of methanol, etc.. The
plume also contains some of the most dangerous substances known to
life: dioxins and furans, chlorine dioxide, formaldehyde, PCBs, and
hexavalent chromium.
5) Mr. Maroc provides us with the same old company line; that by
burning tires, railroad ties, and coal that there "should be fewer
chemicals and particulates going out the boiler stack". Not one
independent expert in the field concurs. In fact power boiler #4
which is slated for this burning is a gas boiler and as such never
designed for solid fuel. The residence time (the time the combustion
products stay in the boiler) is too short to adequately break down
toxic products. The boiler is antiquated, subject to breakdowns and
ongoing problems. It cannot be depended on to safely burn current
materials let alone treated railway ties, coal and tires. Power
boiler #4 also lacks adequate pollution controls. The electrostatic
precipitator installed in 1991 and upgraded in 2001 has been
described by technicians who have worked on it as "undersized", "the
cheapest the Company could find", and as "never having functioned
properly". Even if higher temperatures did reduce emissions of
dioxins and furans, emissions of other dangerous substances will
increase as a result of adding the proposed new fuels. Thus we risk,
at best, exchanging one set of toxic emissions for another-sulphur
dioxide and heavy metals, including mercury, lead, hexavalent
chromium, and zinc. More information can be found at
www.croftonair.org.
6) The three air-quality monitoring stations that Mr. Maroc mentions
only monitor total reduced sulphur compounds (TRS), called "odour",
and particulate matter 10 microns and smaller (PM10).
7) Mr. Maroc is correct, we do not know how the "alternative" fuels
will perform in the Crofton power boiler. This is precisely why a two
and a half year "test" should not be taken without the kinds of
baseline studies and public health risk assessments that are required
in almost every civilized jurisdiction in the world.
None of this would be an issue of debate amongst citizens if the
Ministry of Land Water and Air protection was doing its job. "Moving
towards less pollution, not more" as Mr. Maroc suggests is not
enough. When we are dealing with toxins like dioxins and furans and
hexavalent chromium, substances that have been deemed by the US
Environmental Protection Agency as having "no safe levels", no level
of pollution should be acceptable.
Michael Ableman
|
|
|
Letters