September 14, 2005
CROFTON MILL FORUM MEMBERS URGE NEW HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(Crofton,
BC) – Members of the Crofton Mill Community Advisory Forum last night
recommended that an air dispersion modeling study be redone and that a
full baseline human health risk assessment of the Crofton mill be
conducted.
The recommendation comes after a review by a sub-committee
of the study conducted by mill owner NorskeCanada in 2004 and two
subsequent peer reviews. Comprised of representatives for the union,
environment and First Nations sectors, the group recognized the
fundamental disconnect between what the expectations were for the
initial study and what that study was actually designed to conclude.
“We looked at this critically with an eye to seeing what we could
salvage from what has already been done,” said Patti Bauer,
representative for the environment sector on the sub-committee. “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.”
The recommendation comes
on the heels of a damning peer review of the mill commissioned Jacques
Whitford study “Baseline Air Quality Modelling and Human Health Risk
Assessment of Current Day Emissions from NorskeCanada Crofton
Division”. The peer review, commissioned by the Crofton Airshed
Citizens Group and Reach for Unbleached, found dozens of deficiencies
with the study ranging from the emissions inventory at the foundation
of the study to the lack of adherence to generally accepted risk
assessment principals and guidelines.
At a subsequent public meeting on
May 19th of this year, Jacques Whitford consultants who conducted the
original study agreed that it did not constitute a baseline human
health risk assessment, nor was it ever intended to.
“It is critical
that as a community, we understand what the current impact of the mill
is,” said Bauer of the Crofton Airshed Citizens Group. “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 18th. |
