Cornwall Material Resource Recovery proposal

Cornwall Material Resource Recovery proposal Status report December 99

Cornwall, Ontariomaterial resources recovery unit • Public hearings, attended by Ellen and Paul Connett, June & August 1999 • application for permit to burn 30,000 ppm PCB’s, current permitted for 50 ppm • Cornwall/Massena area already heavily contaminated with PCB’s

Cornwall hazardous waste incinerator • October 1998, began operation • PCB’s from fluorescent light ballast • In the new permit they also want to burn: • pharmaceuticals, chlorofluorocarbons, electrical equipment, poisonous and reactive gasses, “controlled substances” and waste oils.

Submission by P. and E. Connett MRR permit application hearing September 3, 1999 Email: wastenot@northnet.org

Powerpoint Precis of Connett submission • by A. Goddard-Hill, M.D • Email alban.gh@sympatico.ca

The Connett position • “We are opposed to the granting of the Certificate of Approval to MRR to burn 30 Kg of PCBs per metric tonne load, and other additional wastes, except for the disposal of confiscated illicit drugs…... • Rather than allowing a cheap burn of PCBs Ontario should pursue safer non-burn alternatives practiced elsewhere”

12 Reasons for this position

1. A disturbing precedent for Ontario & Canada • The equipment is primitive • This is an incinerator, presented to the public as a recycling plant for metals • It is a relatively cheap facility to be built in an economically depressed part of the province, thus presenting some attraction to the community as a source of revenue

PCB destruction is expensive: incineration is the cheapest option • a “DRE” of 99.999998% sounds impressive but is based on test burns under ideal conditions, and is often greatly at variance with efficiency under actual operating conditions • chemical destruction methods are available but are more expensive

2. Permitting process being rushed: analysis lacks rigor • (OWMC hearings (late 80’s) for proposed hazardous waste incinerator were very rigorous by comparison and lasted 10 yrs) • MoE took emissions data from summary tables rather than from detailed congener profiles of pcb’s and missed a mistake in how non-detects were treated in calculations • Thus, their analysis lacked rigour

The mistake • Proponent claimed that non-detects were treated as though they were present at Limits of Detection in the calculations • this proved not to be the case, as discovered by Connett, not the MoE (despite the latter’s claim (Dr. Birmingham) to having checked all the data • Resulted in Doubling of dioxin exposure, and thus risk

Consultant error • Arthur Gordon Environmental Evaluators Ltd • made same mistake 15 times in its 3 test reports • did not include non-detected dioxins/furans as “detection limits” in calculations • their response when questioned on the matter: “Welcome to the real world!”

Is the MoE engaged in the issue? • MoE inspector attended just one of 3 tests in March 1999 • (on which day dioxin emissions proved to be much higher than on other two days)

The Big Omission • Cow’s milk (and other animal fat) pathways of intake were not included along with vegetable and inhalation pathways by Willes in original RA • When he did so at Connett’s suggestion, dioxin exposure via animal fat was 3000 times higher than the inhalation pathway • this translates into a 600 fold increase in dioxin exposure at regional dairy farms

Milk producer • 5 counties surrounding Cornwall are #5,7,12,13 and 15 in milk production in Ontario • 3 of these counties are downwind of the facility

The Bigger Omission • PCB emissions were excluded from calculations of dioxins TEF’s by Dr. Willes • some PCB’s have a high TEF (toxic equivalency factor) • in the absence of this element in the calculation it is impossible to make an accurate calculation of dioxin TEQ’s present in the PCB emission at the facility

Consequences: MoE regroups • As a result, MoE required that another more closely inspected DRE test burn be done, this time factoring in the PCB congeners in the emissions, especially the 12 that have dioxin-like properties, and that they be included in the Health Risk Assessment

3. Quality of key data questionable • Very limited test data were provided • PCB, dioxin and furan emissions were relatively low according to this data, which was not credible for a number of reasons • emission data “too good to be true” • other metal reclamation plants of similar type elsewhere have had very high dioxin emissions.

(lack of)Pollution control devices • low emissions only been achieved previously by more elaborate facilities using longer residence (burn) times, and far more advanced air pollution equipment such as spray dryers, lime injection, activated carbon injection and baghouse filters • this facility has only a single wet scrubber as a pollution control device, so why is it so effective? (no explanation offered)

4. Facility failed particulate guideline in EVERY test • Failed in 9/9 tests to meet the 20 mg standard • problem: most of the dioxins and furans and as well metals (Pb, Cd, Cr, As) are concentrated on these particulates, esp very small particles, so high releases of particulates are an important route of escape for the chlorinated organic chemicals and heavy metals into the environment

5. Over reliance placed on short term tests to estimate long term dioxin and PCB emissions • only 6 test samples, 3 in Nov 1998 and 3 in March 1999 were taken, on which total health Risk Assessment and permitting were based • these are the DRE (“destruction and removal efficiency”) tests of the incinerator

second set of 3 samples taken when facility only operating at Half capacity • proponent’s consultants (Kolymeychok, Willes) interpreted emission tests • but Connett said: “Statistically there is no way that an average from these 3 tests is either accurate or a “conservative” estimate annual emissions”

Ideal vs Actual • proponent has not established what “actual” emissions might be over an extended period of time and outside of the “ideal” conditions of the test burns (operates at 750 deg C) • measurements were not taken during startup/shutdown intervals and upset conditions when furnace temperature is favorable for dioxin formation • dioxin forms in a 200- 400 deg C “window”

6. No emission data was presented for other wastes proposed for burning • Permitting for the burning of wastes other than PCB’s is being applied for without any testing whatsoever • e.g. other facilities burning electrical scrap have very high dioxin emissions • each category of waste should be subjected to rigorous test burns prior to approval

pharmaceuticals • No health Risk Assessment prepared on the incineration of pharmaceuticals • no chemical analysis of the scrubber water, fugitive ash emissions and ash handling

7. Permitting is insensitive to the history of the area • Affects Cornwall, 3 Mohawk Nations, and communities in New York State • already affected by dioxins, furans and PCBs from two aluminum smelters, Reynolds and Alcoa, across the river at Massena, NY, documented in annual TRI • IJC identified Cornwall-Massena area of St. Lawrence River as one of 42 “Areas of Concern”

8. Need to know existing body burdens of PCB’s & dioxins • In order to assess impacts on health • currently there is a lack of such data • current burdens from other sources may already have contributed to various illnesses • local residents should therefore not be subjected to further burdens of toxic contaminants

Health Risk Assessment4 components • Stack pollutant emission measurement • dispersion models, to calculate max annual ground level concentrations of same • estimate of human exposure by various Pathways including air inhalation and food ingestion • compare calculated exposure dose to regulatory standards

Cornwall public health unit • Dr. Bourdeau, Medical Officer of Health • espoused the standard view of the Ontario public health community that cancer and non-cancer illness are due to lifestyle factors (smoking, lack of exercise, diet) and have little to do with toxic chemical pollutants in the environment……..

Medical Officer of Health • quoted 1996 Harvard Report on Cancer Prevention to explain cancers: • 30% from smoking, 30% from obesity and fat and lack of exercise, • and 2% from environmental sources. • (he also noted lower male:female birth ratio in Cornwall)

Dr. Richard Clapp,Boston Univ School of Public Health • The Harvard Report “was another in a long series of reports emphasizing the role of personal lifestyle choices in creating risk of cancer…This view has been touted by industry groups seeking to reduce federal and state regulation of carcinogens in the workplace and the general environment.” • Int’l J of Health Services, 28:4

And the MoH…. • ...Had not read any of the reports prepared by the Mohawk Nations concerning the impacts of PCBs and other contaminants on the Mohawk people • ...claimed that the high admission rate of children with asthma to hospital in the Cornwall area was related to cigaret smoking in the family home but had no local data to support this conclusion

Eastern Ontario (Cornwall)public health unit • Ontario public health (HPPA) legislation mandates a report on local hazardous waste sites and environmental risks every 5 years, with annual updates • State of Environment Report from the Eastern Ontario Health Unit, May 1994 • no report or update since • Dr. Doshi, epidemiologist, EOHU, August 31,1999

9.Health risk assessments underestimate risks to residents • As done by proponent and regulator (MoE) • Drs. Willes (proponent), Birmingham (MoE): assumptions not conservative; PCB’s not included in dioxin TEQ measure • role of dioxin as potential Hormone Disruptor not considered at all in RA • no current data on dioxin levels in breast milk of local residents provided or considered

RA only considers effect on individuals at point of maximum exposure, but > 1/2 of emissions are spread beyond this point • I.E. effect of long distance transport beyond point of maximum impact and cumulative effect that this together with other similar facilities could have on the Ontario food chain was not considered

Willes: female child is most sensitive “target” to be considered in doing RA • Connett: female child one generation removed would be more representative, having received exposure in utero as a fetus, then received breast milk from a mother who has accumulated a body burden over 20 years, in addition to the child’s subsequent exposure during growth

Synergism and cancer • Exposure to dioxins could be synergistic with cigaret smoking: • cigaret smoke is an “initiator” of cancer • dioxin is a “promoter” of cancer

10. Maximally exposed individuals could exceed new WHO TDI for Dioxin • based on new WHO standard of 2.5 - 4 pg/kg/day body weight for dioxin intake, (revised in 1998 from 10 pg), the Ontario standard will likely also be adjusted downward sometime during the course of the 20 yr operating life of the incinerator

11. Other preexisting sources of exposure in the community • Pcb’s, dioxins and furans already contaminate the community from multiple other sources • one new source (e.g the proposed facility) may push individuals over the threshold of Tolerable Daily Intake

12. One year delay • If the permit is granted, a one year delay should be stipulated to allow for the collection of additional data so that the project can be put on a more scientifically rigorous footing

Letter to Dr. Bourdeaufrom A. Goddard-Hill, M.D, Sept 20, 1999 • “Recently I received a copy of E and P Connett’s submission to the public hearings on the matter of the MRR facility.I have summarized these and put them on my website.As you are quoted in their submission I would be grateful if you would review my precis and make any suggestions or corrections that you have.” • (No reply was received)

Globe and MailOctober 18, 1999, Martin Mittelstaedt “Proposal Calls for bargain basement PCB furnace”

“Small company says it has passed all the tests, but critics worry about proliferation of hazardous waste incinerators” • MRR SRBP Inc proposal: to use $3.5 million scrap metal furnace as hazardous waste incinerator to burn PCB’s at 600 times current regulatory limit

“Usually people say small is better”, Damian Rodriguez, president, MRR... “We are not trying to lower regulatory standards, we are setting new standards” • these small furnaces are not used in U.S. for pcb destruction according to U.S. manufacturer, United Group, Topeka, Kansas (handle anything up to 499 ppm) Ross Ragland, United’s retired chief engineer)

PCB incineration • Perhaps 6 incinerators in North America licensed to handle high level pcb’s (which is US is defined as > 500 ppm) • Bovar ( Swan Hills, Alta) unit cost $400 million to build • Ontario gov’t spent $80 million in unsuccessful 10 yr attempt to build a site to handle pcb waste

MMR Cornwall pcb burning • currently licensed to burn up to 50 ppm • last year’s permit stipulates removal and proper disposal of higher concentrations prior to burn • current proposal: raise limit to 30,000 ppm to allow burning of electrical light equipment heavily contaminated with pcb’s without costly stop of removing contaminant for destruction elsewhere

MRRcorporate structure • Damian Rodriguez, President • Jan Strmen, Vice president • 9 shareholders • other owners: 3 doctors, a lawyer and several small businessmen • Quebec based company

Response of hazardous waste industry to proposal • Martin Hassenbach, PCB Containment Technology (a company which collects pcb’s for destruction elsewhere): • “We have some concerns that the ministry seems to be relaxing the standards under which the industry operates. If this is approved, standards of getting rid of PCBs would be lowered.”

Globe and MailNov 4, 1999, Martin Mittelstaedt “PCB Disposal plan in Cornwall approved despite objections”

Ontario Environmental Assessment Board decision • MMR SRBP proposal approved, Nov 1, 99 • Board Chairman, Pauline Browes: “I was moved by the fact that many residents, including many community leaders, expressed their objection to the proposed additional wastes, particularly PCBs, being incinerated.”

Cornwall Material Resource Recovery proposal