|
To baseline or not to baseline? |
|
|
|
By Edward Hill
Ladysmith Chronicle
Nov 12 2005
The Crofton mill's community advisory forum is on the cusp of seeking
an arms-length redo of last year's pollution study or more particulate
monitoring, but discord within the group threatens to bog down any
clear direction.
The forum is still circling around the 2004 Jacques Whitford pollution
and health study of Catalyst's pulp mill. In September, a forum
subcommittee said the study was deeply flawed and unredeemable.
The subcommittee recommended a redo of pollution modelling and a deeper
health study. But some forum members and Catalyst management aren't
ready to toss the report and questioned the ability of any engineering
firm to deliver uncontested results.
"I won't vote for another study because it won't be seen as
acceptable," said Joe Allan, a mill employee representative. "It
doesn't matter how good it is, people will pick and scrape at the
edges."
Don McKendrick, vice-president of Catalyst Crofton, admitted the mill
is the biggest single polluter in the neighbourhood, but suggested
particulate monitoring was a better direction for the health of the
community.
Monitoring stations around Crofton have shown exhaust from traffic and
the ferry contributes more to local smog than mill stack emissions.
McKendrick pointed out when the mill has shut down for maintenance,
particulate matter doesn't appreciably decrease in Crofton.
"We are not the major contributor of particulate matter," McKendrick
said. "This is not to deflect the issue, but if the mill causes health
effects we need to address these other sources."
Some forum members say looking at monitoring stations without
acceptable pollution modelling is backward logic. Elizabeth White, an
environment representative, said without knowing where pollutants
concentrate due to weather patterns, stations can't be located properly.
"We don't know where the 'hot spots' are and we need the modelling to know," she said.
But that supposes the Jacques Whitford report is too flawed to be
acceptable. Earlier this year, engineering firm RWDI, hired by the
Crofton Airshed Citizens' Group, condemned the study as worthless.
SENES, hired by Catalyst, pointed out minor flaws but said it was good
enough. No clear consensus was reached.
"I would like to see the study redone, but not under [Catalyst] or the
Airshed group, but this group," said Carol Donnelly, representing
Crofton citizens. "We need it done independently. If it is done by
others it will be seen as biased."
Forum chair Jon Lefebure said it is unlikely a new pollution and health
report could be seen as untainted with bias or offer crystal-clear
results.
"We want science to give us black-and-white answers, but science
doesn't do that," Lefebure said. "The more complex the issue the more
complex the science and more equivocal the interpretation can be."
The next community forum is coming to its first anniversary, but has
yet to recommend a single change to Catalyst. The group has tried to
tackle a host of issues, including monitoring station positions,
airshed management, odour problems, and pollution reports, but often
becomes stalled trying to locate and interpret technical data.
In the past, some members have taken clearly adversarial positions
towards the mill, although Lefebure noted recent meetings have become
more "respectful".
"We are at a critical stage," Lefebure said. "At the next meeting we
will make a decision which way to go - whether to rework the JW study
or focus on a monitoring program."
Source Page from Duncan News Leader Portal |
In the News