MEDIA RELEASE - Friday June 26, 2009

DURHAM INCINERATOR VOTE OVERLOOKED PROBLEMS

Durham Region, Fri June 26, 2009 -- Durham Region councillors who voted to
move the Durham incinerator project forward did so by ignoring significant
problems with the environmental assessment study, the lack of a detailed
business case, and glossed over the troubling environmental and labour
record of the selected contractor, Covanta Energy. Instead, longtime
incinerator supporters on council chose to repeat industry fairy tales or
attempted to divert attention from the subject.

Activists, doctors, union officials and residents spoke at length during
the public meetings Wednesday and Tuesday June 16, and showed that
incineration fails to properly address waste management on every count:
health, economics and sustainability.

Scugog Mayor Marilyn Pearce, chair of the Region's Finance and
Administration committee, did not address the deficiencies in long term
cost analysis in the project works and finance report. Instead she talked
about existing polluters with outdated certificates of approval for air
emissions. Though described as a "fiscal hawk", it is puzzling that, as
chair of finance, she is able to support the largest capital project in
Durham Region's history without a clear and detailed analysis of the
business case for all proposed capacity expansion options. The
environmental assessment seeks approval for up to 400,000 metric tonnes
per year.

Councillors also were quick to selectively quote carefully worded
statements by consultants and the Medical Officer of Health concerning the
review the human health and ecological risk assessment to claim the
project is safe. The lead consultant for the health risk assessment, Dr.
Chris Ollson clearly stated "risk assessment is not a science to prove
that things are safe". Instead Oshawa Regional Councillor Pidwerbecki
based his assessment on the fact that on a recent trip to Europe, he
appeared to interpret the sight of laundry hung out to dry in the vicinity
of an incinerator he was visiting, as being a sure sign that incineration
must be safe.

A glaring flaw of the decision making and environmental assessment process
was the lack of public consultation by Durham Region over the last two
years of the study. There were no public consultations in Durham outside
the designated host community of Clarington after 2006. However, terms
like "thermal treatment" and "energy from waste" were used to greenwash
and mask the true nature of the project, i.e. burning garbage. Proponents
still use the term "energy from waste" even though the amount of energy
produced is less than one percent of the capacity of the neighbouring
Darlington nuclear station. As recently as last week, on a regional TV
talk show, Durham Chairman Roger Anderson repeated a discredited myth that
fireworks release more dioxin pollution than many years of incinerator
operation.

Ironically, many councillors who had previously justified their
pro-incinerator voting record by claiming they were waiting for the full
studies did not seem to mind they were missing key peer reviews and any
financial data for the potential expansion of the incinerator to 250,000
and even 400,000 metric tonnes per year. The Medical Officer of Health
report was only done for the minimum capacity scenario of 140,000 tonnes.

This is far from being a "done deal". Some of the focus will now shift to
the Ministry of the Environment review. Durham community activists have
vowed to continue to press for safer and sustainable waste management
alternatives at every opportunity.

- 30 -

Note to editors: spelling of consultant's name Chris Ollson is correct
with two ells.