nous nous excusons que ce site ne soit pas encore disponible en français...

Don't let New Brunswick become the toxic waste tailpipe of North America. The planned Belledune incinerator will create a legacy of toxic contamination for generations to come... 

The NB government has given preliminary approval to Bennett Environmental for the construction of a toxic waste incinerator in Belledune. Dismissing fierce opposition from scientists, environmentalists, and many concerned citizens, Bennett plans to start importing toxic wastes from polluted sites in the U.S. & Canada in early 2004.

Why should we care about toxic waste incineration in Belledune? 

Overwhelming scientific & historical evidences shows that toxic waste incineration has significant & serious long-term health impacts. 

“It seems to me that in licensing these incineration operations, the government is creating zones of sacrifice. When I say ‘sacrifice zones’ I’m not just talking about people getting sick. I’ve seen them die. If the wind would blow the smoke towards the school on a Monday you’d see children being at home sick on Tuesday and Wednesday. The schools near incinerators had the highest absentee rates in the district. I met a lot of these children. I’ve seen them die of leukemia, brain cancer and a host of other disorders.”

--Dr. Neil Carman, former incinerator inspector & internationally-recognized expert on toxic waste incineration  

The Select Committee on the European Communities looking in to Waste Incineration:

"I repeat, the emissions from incinerator processes are extremely toxic. Some of the emissions are carcinogenic. We know, scientifically, that there is no safe threshold below which we can allow such emissions. We must use every reasonable instrument to eliminate them altogether." 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on toxic waste incinerators:

"these sources emit some of the most toxic, bioaccumulative and persistent hazardous air pollutants -- among them dioxins, furans, mercury and organic hazardous air pollutants."

A few waste incinerator headlines from around the world:

Incinerator cancer threat revealed (Guardian 18th May 2000) 
'The British Journal of Cancer reported that people living within 4.6 miles of municipal waste incinerators have an increased likelihood of developing cancers'

Waste Incinerators provoke the birth of deformed babies (CNIID, 21st January, 2003) 

Autism linked to incinerator air pollution (The Sunday Express, 12th January, 2003) 
' findings reveal children with developmental brain disorders - all of whom live around incinerator sites' 
"the levels of toxins we have found in these children's blood is frightening." 

Watchdog admits ignorance of incinerator health risks (The Guardian November 29th 2000) 
'The environment agency admitted yesterday to MPs that it had no idea how dangerous Britain's new 
generation of incinerators will be to public health.' 

Children at risk from poisoned incinerator ash on paths (Guardian 8 May 2000)

Incinerator pollution can have devastating effect on birth rate (26th May 2000) 

New Scientific Report Condemns Incinerators as a Threat to Human Health ( April 9th 2001)

Incinerator Firm Faces Charges over Toxic Waste (Guardian 15th December 2000) 

Doctors' group warns on unknown risks of incineration (2nd April 2002) 
'we have concerns regarding adverse health effects.' 

Dioxins found in allotments near incinerator ( Observer 29th October)

Dioxins in Babies at 85 times Safety Limit (Independant, 17th November 2002) 

EPA links Dioxin to cancer (Washington Post) 

US Report to firmly link dioxin with cancer (Reuters/ABC News) 

Cover-up claim on incinerators (Guardian 1st November 2000)
'MPs accuse civil servants of hiding health dangers' 

Incinerator plan on hold over fears (15th February 2002) 
"It would be extremely foolish for politicians not to listen to the people - and to do so would be arrogance of the highest order." 

Greenpeace Volunteers Shut Down Britains 'Flagship' Incinerator (25th February 2002)

The history of waste incineration can be characterized as a series of environmental disasters which have left scores of incinerator hosting communities with a legacy of toxic contamination, cancer & death. Many waste incineration facilities in the U.S. have they themselves become highly polluted & abandoned toxic sites and are in need of costly decontamination & cleanup.

"I don't think that the toxic incineration industry should have a right to poison our air and sacrifice our community," said Sue Pope, a resident of Midlothian, Texas, which is home to the Texas Industries waste burning cement kilns. "Our air has been polluted, our quality of life worsened, our properties devalued and our health compromised. We are not expendable...."

Toxic waste incineration - the cure is much worse than the disease

Contrary to operator claims, incinerators do not break down wastes into inert or harmless components. In fact, incinerators generate cancer causing dioxins, the most harmful chemicals known to science. Dioxins not only threaten the health of communities living close to incinerators but are globe trotting killers. They ride on atmospheric and ocean currents and are deposited sometimes thousands of miles from the incinerator that has emitted them. 

Incinerators also release heavy metals, furans and halogenated organic compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenlys (PCBs), and a range of other very dangerous pollutants. These pollutants cause a variety of serious health problems: immune and reproductive system defects, spontaneous abortions, respiratory diseases, diabetes, hormone disruption and cancers.

The pollutants are released into the environment in incinerator smoke clouds and in the ash, which are then spread into the environment and can leach into groundwater, contaminating wells, rivers and seas. It is estimated that, for every three tons of waste that is incinerated, one ton of highly toxic ash is generated [the Belledune facility will start production at 100,000 tons/yr].  Instead of detoxifying, incinerators actually concentrate contaminants into combustion bi-products that are often more toxic than the pre-incinerated wastes. 

A Toxic Cocktail

Proponents of incineration technologies claim that 'new' incinerators (i.e. such as the proposed Belledune facility) are much superior to older ones and no longer emit significant aerial emission. This is very far from the truth. Modern incinerators still release large quantities of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. And even where reductions in aerial emissions have been achieved, the highly toxic compounds end up in residual ash and waste water. 

Burning hazardous waste, even in new incinerators, leads to the release of three types of dangerous pollutants into the environment:

- new chemicals formed during the incineration process ( dioxins & furans + unknowns )
- toxic heavy metals ( lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and chromium )
- unburned toxic chemicals

These pollutants are released into the environment by air emissions or in incinerator ash which is buried in landfill or dumped in the environment. Sometimes the ash is combined with soil & re-used as landfill which is spread in residential areas or parks.

In Bennett's own words:

"The one [area] where we have the edge over all the companies is dioxins, which now, after many years of research, they've discovered is the most toxic element known to man.” 

“We're looking forward to an extremely bright future as we're now the only operating plant in North America that can destroy dioxins and the list of chemicals where we are the only cost effective option is growing daily....There are very few restrictions to crossing the borders. So we can bring waste from anywhere. One contract we won based on price was in Mexico City ......Waste is just another commodity.”  

-- John Bennett, Wall Street Transcript interview, 03/15/2001--

"the most toxic element known to man" - "just another commodity". This doesn't inspire confidence in the integrity of Bennett's corporate responsibility to the welfare of New Brunswickers or the health of our environment. Bennett's "commodity" will be northern New Brunswick's ruin.

Dioxins found in allotments near incinerator (Observer 29th October 2001)

EPA links Dioxin to cancer (Washington Post) 

US Report to firmly link dioxin with cancer (Reuters/ABC News) 

see: http://www.greenpeacemed.org.mt/toxics/incineration.html for more on the dangers of incineration

see http://www.grievousangels.com/highgrader/2002/bennett02.html for more on Bennett

The Ontario government recently refused to license a similar Bennett incinerator proposed for Kirkland Lake because it was deemed a threat to public health

“The inevitable contamination of residential, farm and wilderness land with PCBs, dioxins, furans and heavy metals (to name a few) will adversely affect the health of the people, animal life and vegetation. Bennett Environmental Inc. and any other company for that matter, which engages in such actions will be regarded by physicians at large, as having a direct attack on the health of the public, putting at risk children, aged, infirm, pregnant (with emphasis on the fetus) and infants who are breast-fed.”

-- Dr. Riina Bray, Ontario College of Family Physicians

Despite Ontario's refusal to license Bennett, the Belledune project was fast-tracked by the NB government. Why are the citizens of NB afforded less protection from the toxic effects of waste incineration than those from Ontario?

The NB government did not require a full environmental impact study for the Bennett project. Ontario's review of the study revealed that Bennett's planned facility did not meet the minimum requirements for health & safety. 

What data NB did receive from Bennett was not reviewed by an independent 3rd party. It was also heavily criticized by local environmental scientists for many of the same reasons upon which Ontario based its refusal. But these criticisms were ignored by the NB government...

Historically, waste incineration companies operate as follows: 

1. Make promises to government about emissions controls & safety measures. 

2. Get a license to build & operate the waste facility. 

3. Get operational. 

4. Increase the types of toxic wastes being processed (regardless of the original license). 

5. Increase the volume of waste processed (regardless of the original license). 

6. Conceal, deny, or deflect any responsibility for unplanned emissions, increases in toxic contamination or health impacts in the region. 

7. Continue operations while fighting contamination & shutdown lawsuits brought on by local citizens or governments.

8. Close then abandon the site as a toxic disaster requiring bail out & cleanup from host governments. 

9. Find a new site & start again.

No matter what requirements the NB government establishes now, they will have no recourse once the proposed incinerator begins operation. NB has no applicable process to monitor/enforce its own requirements so the incineration companies are left to police themselves - the perennial fox guarding the henhouse. Do you think they ever shut themselves down voluntarily? Most don't even have the means to accurately measure the toxicity of their emissions...

Historically, incinerator operators continue to operate despite local protests, government fines, & court injunctions until they are literally run out of town. Until the evidence is so overwhelming that no one can deny how much harm is being done, they fight & fight to keep burning because every ton of waste incinerated is money in their pockets. During the 10 to 20 years it takes for this tragedy to play out, the communities & ecosystems around the facility are utterly polluted. Then when the company flees for greener pastures, the communities are left to deal with the toxic aftermath.

Bennett's initial Belledune proposal was for a 200,000 ton/yr. facility which would process chlorinated hydrocarbon & creosote contaminated wastes, PCBs, pesticides & others. The proposal was then revised limiting capacity to 100,000 tons/yr. & materials to non-chlorinated hydrocarbon & creosote contaminated soils.

Bennett's St. Ambroise toxic waste incinerator was initially licensed to process only hydrocarbon contaminated soil. Within 6 months, it upgraded its license to process PCBs. There is reason to believe that the same is possible for Belledune. From Bennett's own website:

"Bennett's focus is soil contaminated with a wide range of chlorinated material, including PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, furans and wood treatment by-products such as creosote and PCPs."

http://www.bennettenv.com/about/about.html

Historically incinerator operators make whatever promises they need in order to get a license, then they expand the types of wastes they process.

Toxic emissions from the incinerator may threaten agriculture & an important commercial fishery in northern NB.

The planned incinerator will be located in a prime commercial fishing region. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says air pollution from an incinerator travels at least 50 kilometers (31 miles). This suggests that an area as large as 8000 km² around Belledune could be potentially affected by toxic emissions.

La Baie des Chaleurs is home to a commercial fishery currently employing thousands & generating tens of millions in revenues.

In 1999, the Belgian agricultural industry was devastated by a dioxin contamination scare. A mere 40 to 50 milligrams of contamination resulted in losses of over $3 billion ( U.S.).  

Scientific experts in toxic waste management recommend treating toxic wastes onsite to avoid moving contaminants from affected to unaffected areas. The transport of toxic wastes into NB puts communities & entire industries between Belledune & points of origin at serious risk for contamination.

Transferring contamination from other jurisdictions outside of Canada into NB is completely unacceptable. The Bennett proposal would place a punitive burden on the people of NB by asking them to assume risk of contaminants that originate outside the province and the country.

The Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment calls for diversion away from incineration. The Bennett proposal calls for the opposite. 

If Belledune goes ahead, thousands of tons of hazardous materials will converge on NB. Thousands of trucks will be running through the province to deliver toxic materials to Belledune. What happens when accidents along the way occur and toxic payloads are spilled? 

By accepting to incinerate toxic waste, NB will get continued & ever growing negative publicity which will hamper long-term economic growth for the region and the province. NB tourism may also be seriously impacted as our province gets branded as a haven for toxic waste.

Many allege that Bennett has a history of environmental infractions & unsafe operations. 

The St. Ambroise toxic waste incinerator has been held up by Bennett as an example of how well a Bennett incineration facility can work.  The plant, Recupere Sol, is about the size of the proposed Belledune operation. "We operate at ten times the efficiency required," says Bennett of Recupere Sol. "We have never had any problems whatsoever with the unit."

Here is a summary of some known problems at the St. Ambroise facility: 

• Notice of violation for storing dangerous waste (Aug. 1 1997). 

• Operating crushing equipment without proper authorization (Feb. 26, 1999)

• five violations noted (July 27, 1999) 

• the emergency release valve released particles into the air for three minutes (October 02, 2001) 

• emergency release valve opened for two minutes (October 31, 2001)  

• emergency release valve left open for 11 minutes ( November 27, 2001)

• equipment breakdown caused the emergency release stack to be opened (December 12, 2001 )

• a breaker was tripped causing the emergency stack to be opened for three full minutes (December 13, 2001)  

• a loss of water in the quench stack caused particles to be released into the atmosphere for a full 14 minutes (December 29, 2001)

• a human error caused the emergency vent stack to be opened for five minutes (March 12, 2002)

After Bennett had been operating for only 300 days, the efficiency of the St. Ambroise plant came under fire after the release of a study done by the regional health unit, which found "...persistent and bio-accumulating toxic substances, notably: lead, mercury, cadmium, dioxins and furans" that had accumulated in the surrounding forest floor. 

Prior to Bennett going online, Quebec's Ministry of Environment had established the absence of PCB's, dioxins and furans in the soils around the plant.

Numerous articles in the local paper Le Quotidien note troubles at the plant including:  

• "A hundred tons of toxic material in the form of cement blocks contaminated with PCBs have been stored illegally by RS in St. Ambroise" (Jan 13. 1998)

•  "Complaint Lodged Against Recupere Sol" - at issue were reports of black smoke emanating from the plant (Feb. 27, 1998)

In 1997, as a result of public outcry against the Bennett facility, the Quebec government convened the Munger Commission to study Bennett's operations. The Commission concluded that:

1)  Bennett's toxic emmissions tests and data were flawed & should be redone

2)  Bennett should place a moratorium on operations until new emissions tests were performed and the public consultation process were completed.

Bennett refused to accept the Commission’s recommendation that the company stop burning. As the company had already received a license, the government was powerless to enforce the Munger request. Bennett spokesman Gilles Beauregard, stated that the company would not comply because “the financial viability of the operation was at stake.” 

This happens time & time again with incinerator operators -  once licensed, they keep burning no matter what the government or the public says about health & safety risks. 

The Montreal Mirror reported a number of incidents where thick black smoke was seen streaming from the emergency stack for up to two hours at a time.

"Nothing angers Laurice Nadeau more than when the incinerator’s security latch opens up, releasing a stream of thick black smoke – filled with the products of incomplete combustion – that continues up to two hours. The latch opens only when the pressure inside the incinerator becomes too high. Since the incinerator first started operating six weeks ago, its security latch has opened three times.”

Perhaps the most damning indictment of Bennett's safety came from within the facility staff.

St. Ambroise Operations Director Jean-Pierre Bouchard resigned only 1 year after the plant came online citing serious concerns about the safety of plant operating procedures & the quality of employee training.

“After the first operation period, I had insisted that we interrupt operations in order to give employees proper training and readjust operational procedures as well as safety rules. The authority to stop operations was taken from me..."

For more on Bennett's safety record and references to issues/fallout from the failed Kirkland Lake Incinerator:

http://www.grievousangels.com/highgrader/2000/emissions2000.html

http://www.grievousangels.com/highgrader/2002/bennett02.html

http://www.grievousangels.com/highgrader/wastepage.html

For a detailed history of Bennett: 

http://www.nbenrenb.elements.nb.ca/egroups/groupnews/groupnews_archives/03/belledunefirstjob.htm

 So little to gain - so much to lose... 

The Bennett incinerator will likely attract toxic waste from the most polluted sites in the US and abroad where regulations often prohibit incineration to protect public health. 

Even basic common sense tells us this can't be good for New Brunswick. Add  the awful history of toxic contamination & serious health problems associated with other incineration facilities and there can be no other conclusion:

The Bennett Toxic Waste Incinerator !!!

Petition to Bernard Lord

Premier Bernard Lord quashed toll highways long after it was a 'done deal' & at great cost to NB tax payers. In comparison, the cost to stop the Bennett incineration facility is negligible, and the stakes are so much higher: people die from the contaminants Bennett plans to import en masse - their toxic effects could be felt for generations. 

Premier Lord will only stop Bennett once enough voices can be heard saying no to toxic waste incineration. If you believe in stopping this project for the preservation of human health & the protection of our precious environment, please send this petition to addressed to Premier Lord & staff:

If you want to let others know about the petition, click here now and your email program will open with a pre-written message. If everyone who signs the petition can find 2 other people to sign, Premier Lord's email box will overflow with your appeals to stop the Belledune Incinerator.

If you're interested, you can also join the petition to ban dangerous lawn pesticides here:

http://banpesticides.com/

sources:

http://www.nbenrenb.elements.nb.ca/egroups/groupnews/groupnews_archives/03/belledune_info.htm http://www.greenpeacemed.org.mt/toxics/incineration.html  
http://www.cank.org.uk/canklinks.html
http://www.no-burn.org/resources/index.html  http://www.healutah.org/davis_co/dangers_of_incineration/rachels_incinerator_news.html
http://www.grievousangels.com/highgrader/2000/emissions2000.html http://www.grievousangels.com/highgrader/2002/bennett02.html  
http://www.grievousangels.com/highgrader/wastepage.html
http://www.monitor.net/rachel/r456.html
http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/Incinerators.htm
http://www.cqs.com/ehazburn.htm
http://www.safecleanup.com/incinrat/stateart.htm  
http://www.cank.org.uk/MispelstraatMWIHealthImpact.html