Comm ittee puts pro posed Fonbcure 1\1-4- 01 ii ii UI 811ALII i I 4&t ï t 1îiý,A bck projectforfive years By Melanie Hennessey CANADIAN CHAMPION STAFF Local environmentalists were ail smiles Wednesday after a regionai committee unanimously supported taking the con- troversial energy-irom-waste (EFW) proposaI off the table - at Ieast for now After beaning from the residents largely concernied wiitb the negative bealth and enviromental impacts tbe laci could have, the planning and public works committee endorsed a motion tbat says the Region won't become the proponent for EFW now, but rather five years down the road. I also catis for staff to worl, witb other area municipali- ties and tbe Province 10 develop and implement effective waste reductton and diversion initiatives tbat promote envi- ronmental sustainability. The resolution is aiong tbe samte fines as one suggested by Protect Our Water and Environental Resources (POWER), wbich appeared before the committee 10 urge counicillors to rethink going abead witb the EFW concept. EFW flot the answer Barbara Halsaîl of POWER empbasized incînecators destroy materials that muîst tben be replaced, in turn pro- ducing more wastc. "if I humn a piece of paper instead of recyciing it, someone bas to manufacture a new piece of paper from raw materials," sbte said. "This is tremendously wasteful because manufat- tuning one tonne of paper creates 98 tonnes of waste procl- ucts." Meanwbiie, Oakvillegreen president Liz Benneîan saîd tbe bealtb impacts tbe EP7W laciit would bave need to be given serious consideration. "We believe incineration poses a serîous risk to public behi" sbe said, noting tbee' no safe iimit for tbe danger- ous chemicals tbat would be emitted. Sbe aiso said it would place an tinacceptable burden on tbe environment. "If we are goîng to get senious about global warming, we must gel serious about emissions," she said. Burlîngton resident Tom Muir also toucbed on tbe issue of environmental and beaiîb effects, noting tbat provincial guidelines are etber falaiy obsolete or don't exist for many chemnicals that would be reieased. "Therefore, tbe Region cannot protect tbe bealtb of rei dents using tbese guidelines,' be said. "Peuple are already sickened and killed by pollution and this facility, unless it doesn't bave to exhale, will just make tbîngs worse. For Gillian Fanle of Miltongreen. the EFW would be a -LI sIlIo on i ccyc lîg aînd comniposo 's asic î-lot bumîing îî,' she saîd. "Let focu on reducing greenhouse gases and pollution levels, not increasing îbem witb an EFW facility" Halton Medical Ofbicer of HIaî Dr. Bob Nosal and a peer review of tbe business case also expressed worries about the enviroumental and bealtb impacts the EFW faciliîy could bave. "The direct emissions are significant and thats one ol the key issues we have concemns witb,' Dr. Nosal said. Tbe business case found tbat compared 10 tbe curreni ilbo of landfîlling, an EFW faciiî would emit a mucb greater volume of air pollutants associaîed witb smog and more greenbouse gases. EFsV would also emît smai quantîties of heai metals lanclig do.si I t. Thbe study looked at a varîety of options lor tbe laciltty, ranging from one ibat would accommodate 100,000 tonnes of waste per year [rom Halton residents only 10 one that could fit 1.2 million tonnes per year from local resîdents, businesses, biosolids antI otber munîcipaîtties in tbe Greater Golden Horsesboe. Based on tbe wide range of tonnes, tbe capital cost of the plant could be anywhere from $112 million to $690 million. Tbe cost 10 taxpayers was also considered. While baving garbage, recycling and Greencart pick-up would cost tbe average taxpayer (based on a $300,000 assessment) about $135 a year, addîng an FFW facilitv to, tbe mix would pusb that figure up to $178. *sel NOT on page Al 6 ~Bugoî UE~p zi e- 1, ~ ~ 2A. 2 Iî î î àî bs- 30e W9NRS 0AS 30LukyWîneswtl eciv tevaue(lssa ola) f her uchseorleseo 207Crla4arxadSen!3 inr n o vr a ue IAt iRISES EVESYTINE 0 1 3ECO AE ANS010SlI N ULAIA . 2 $î î 7-1