It's hard to see the truth through all the smoke

Another great column by John Barber at the Globe and Mail. If only our Regional Councillors could see it so clearly...

The Globe and Mail
Sat 23 Jun 2007
JOHN BARBER

There's nothing like a good, clean hit to enliven either a hockey game or a public debate, and Peterborough consultant Clarissa Morawski landed a beauty this spring when she looked at the emissions data for the necklace of large garbage incinerators our suburban neighbours plan to build around Toronto.

The data, supplied by the vendors of incinerators and published as an appendix to the environmental assessment of the plant that Hamilton and Niagara Region hope to build, showed an entirely different picture from the rosy propaganda the vendors and their agents had spun about their wondrous technology.

Unlike the old incinerators that were once considered safe - until they weren't - the new ones are said to be advanced "energy-to-waste" facilities that turn household waste into clean energy. But the data submitted by the vendors themselves showed that this new technology was one of the dirtiest imaginable ways to produce power - far worse even than coal-fired power plants in terms of heavy-metal and greenhouse-gas emissions.

"I was absolutely shocked that incineration is still under consideration, given the pollution profile alone," Ms. Morawski said at the time. So were a lot of people when she published her findings in Solid Waste Magazine. In the time since then, concerns about the huge costs and potential hazards of incineration have led Halton Region to cancel plans to build a facility, while Niagara and York are slipping free of the partnerships they once entered to do the same.

But Hamilton and Durham still appear determined to go it alone with their big burners, doubling down on what their counterparts considered a losing bet. They do have one new advantage: The inconvenient facts that helped deter the others no longer exist.

Within weeks of Ms. Morawski's critique, the "comparative emission study" she relied on disappeared from the website documenting the Hamilton-Niagara environmental assessment. Within months of the date one of the facilities is scheduled to be built - thanks to the McGuinty government's recent decision to fast- track incinerator projects - there is no agreed-upon data about what will come out of their stacks.

The reason, according to the consultant who advised that the data be "taken down," is that they were incorrect. "We've found more recent information that corrects it," said David Merriman of Genivar Inc., the firm advising both the Hamilton and the Durham teams on their projects. The Niagara document, which was posted for more than a year, was only a draft, according to Mr. Merriman.

"We found, having posted it, there were some incorrect things," he said. "We removed it and we're now working on a corrected version that we will be presenting in September."

Mr. Merriman wouldn't say when he discovered the data was incorrect, but acknowledged the review was inspired in part by incinerator vendors "who told us the emissions coming out of the new technologies are lower than they have been historically."

So they get to supply new numbers, based on their fondest hopes for the very latest technology, to update the image of facilities that were once considered state-of-the-art, low-emission power plants - until they weren't, sometime last week, at which point they reverted to being dirty old mass-burn incinerators.

Technology advances - and so does the tricky business of calculating greenhouse-gas emissions, which represent another image problem for the nasty old incinerators that were so clean and modern last week. Thus the consultants also plan to introduce new, radically downgraded estimates about their carbon-dioxide emissions to replace the ugly numbers that disappeared.

The change is necessary not because there is new technology that reduces carbon emissions from garbage burners, according to Mr. Merriman, but because there is new thinking about how to count them. The actual emissions will stay the same, but the numbers reported in September will likely be halved.

Incinerator vendors have long supported such an approach, which is used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to calculate national carbon inventories - and assumes, among many other things, that all the paper and wood burned as garbage will come from renewable sources. But applying such factors to emissions from actual burners with real smokestacks is highly controversial.

"It's totally inappropriate that anyone would apply IPCC guidelines when measuring emissions from thermal stations," Ms. Morawski said. "We just want to know what comes out of the stack."

But we no longer do - and likely never will, if the new arithmetic prevails and reported carbon emissions fall dramatically this September. In the meantime, numbers swirl headily behind the scenes.

What a spectacle. It's enough to make you realize why the McGuinty government exempted garbage incinerators from the Environmental Assessment Act. Learning the truth about them is such a confusing business.

jbarber@globeandmail.com

Clarington Report Card

"Single issue proving divisive for Clarington Council"

The Metroland Report Card evaluation has been published for our Clarington Council, and while it hits pretty close to the heart of the matter, we might have judged some things slightly differently.

" This year’s grade: C "
" Last year’s grade: B+"

" Clarington council has gone from one extreme to another since its last report card came out one year ago."

"In 2006 we were looking at a slate of seasoned councillors led by a multiple-term mayor who ran the municipality very smoothly but with an iron fist. They had a plan and acted as a cohesive group."

Not sure they were actually so much a cohesive group as a group ruled by a mayor who truly ruled with an iron fist. There was little or no debate about anything. What the mayor said was what was done, period. It appeared that he ruled with TOO MUCH of an iron fist, and that is also not good for the municipality nor for staff or council or residents. Residents were also ruled by an iron fist, many times with intimidation and rudeness. That is not really a good scenario for anyone.

"But the election last year changed the makeup of council and brought new views to the table. Not only do we have three new councillors but also a new mayor in Jim Abernethy."

"While this new crew provides fresh perspective at council meetings they also bring with them a big learning curve. We expected a few hiccups but also for the mayor and each new councillor to do everything they could to learn the job and represent constituents in a fair and reasonable way. So far they’ve done just that."

We agree that the new councillors have done their best to represent their constituents in a fair and reasonable way, but cannot quite say the same for the Mayor with his flip-flops from campaign promises and his unreasonable "landfill or incineration" stance. There are other choices and he won't consider looking at any of them. He also won't accept that incineration does not eliminate landfill, it just puts different materials (ash) into the landfills, including toxic ash that must be shipped to a special facility as it is hazardous waste. We feel the Mayor has not yet realized that he should be representing the PEOPLE, not just the region.

"However, the hiccups that have occurred have been hard to ignore."

"Mayor Abernethy’s absence at the first session of the GTA Mayors and Chairs was unbelievable. Here was a first-time mayor who had zero council experience before being elected. His absence was noticed throughout Durham Region."

It was certainly noticed by residents as well. A very bad start.

"But give the mayor his due, he has settled into the job in recent months and has gained focus. His timing couldn’t have been better because one of the biggest issues ever to hit the municipality has reared its ugly head -- the proposed EFW facility or incinerator as many residents put it."

He certainly has gained focus, but the focus seems to be on incineration and on doing the region's bidding, to the exclusion of most everything else. He appears to have become closed-minded on anything connected to the region, in favour of the region and not of Clarington. While the Statesman gave the Mayor a B-, we would give him a C at best, for now.

"This is one of the issues that requires strong leadership from the mayor because it’s clearly dividing councillors into two camps -- regional versus local."

Strong leadership yes. Tunnel vision, no.

"How else can you explain local councillors Gord Robinson, Willie Woo, Ron Hooper and Adrian Foster’s refusal to allow Regional Chairman Roger Anderson to speak at a recent council meeting regarding EFW?"

The local councillors are listening to the people. The regional councillors (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) are not. They are gung-ho on the region, the region's vision, the region's everything, and are forgetting about what is best for Clarington. The region is NOT always right (remember the greenbelt?).

"They claim it was meant to send a message to Regional council but the message was lost in translation."

We don't think anything was lost in translation. The regional councillors are treating the local councillors like they aren't important, like they shouldn't have any say in things that occur at the regional level, that the regional councillors are above the local councillors in importance, knowledge, and everything that matters. They don't even bother to let the locals know what is going on at the region, and they make motions and resolutions in the name of Clarington without even having them first approved at Clarington Council level. That is just plain WRONG. And we all know that there was no new information for council forthcoming from Chairman Anderson beyond what was already known (the short-list of sites). He was there for one reason only - to send a "message" to the local councillors that they would be allowed $200,000.00 for any peer review studies and no blank cheque. That they would do what the region told them to do and nothing more. That they are at the mercy of Regional Council.

We feel that the local councillors had every right to bully the bullier right back. It was not an easy thing for them to do as very few ever stand up to our unelected regional chair. We must give them credit for doing so, and for trying their best to get the money needed for Clarington to have an independent peer review done of the region's consultant's work, which is badly needed. The region still wants to tell Clarington which studies they can do and which are important or not important to Clarington. We believe Clarington (and Clarington Staff) are in a much better position to decide what is best for Clarington than Durham Region is. We would give all four Local Councillors a B to B+. They need more information to do their jobs, and they are trying their best to get it, with no help from the Mayor or 2 Regional Councillors. We would certainly not deduct any marks for their "message" that was sent not only to Chairman Anderson, but also to their colleagues, Abernethy, Trim and Novak.

"This is an issue council must be united on and stifling debate indicates this is a fractured group. It’s imperative that Mayor Abernethy and Regional councillors Charlie Trim and Mary Novak try to find some common ground with their colleagues before this debate scars council for good."

The local Councillors didn't stifle any debate. There is plenty of debate on this issue. Chairman Anderson was not present for "debate". He was there to send his "strong message" as he stated at an earlier Regional Committee meeting. We've been told by reliable sources he made his intentions very clear at that meeting. It is the Regional Works Chair (Trim) and Mayor Abernethy who seem to want to stifle the debate, reducing it to the false choice of "landfill or incineration" again and again.

It is imperative that the Mayor and two regional councillors start treating their colleagues at Clarington Council as equals, making sure they have all the information from the region that affects Clarington. It is imperative that they become a bit humble, and realize they are ALL paid by the residents of Clarington, and that includes Chair Anderson. They work for us and they should listen to us. They need to be reminded every now and then it seems. They do not seem to realize how this all looks to residents who see them leaving out the residents as well as the Local Councillors at every turn. We would give Novak a C for a grade so far this term, with Trim receiving a C- for his short fuse and kowtowing to Regional interests over Clarington interests.

"For his part Regional Chairman Roger Anderson has attempted to be as helpful as he can when it comes to EFW."

We disagree with this statement. Regional Chairman Roger Anderson has attempted to drive the process to conform with his personal "vision" and preferences. He refuses to listen to the concerns of residents and continues to try to denigrate them when they have the audacity to speak up as delegations to voice their concerns. This unelected Chair drives Regional Council, not the other way around. One more excellent reason to reconsider direct election of the chair by the residents of Durham. He doesn't feel he needs to be accountable to us as we don't have the opportunity to vote for him. He doesn't care what we think, only those at the regional level who can continue to appoint him to the top job in the region.

"There have been numerous public meetings on the issue and he’s been an active participant in most, if not all of the discussions on this technology."

Oh yes, a far too active participant in his efforts to stifle any opposition to his "vision", while trying to appear that he is listening to residents. The EA process demands the public information sessions that are being held. It is not at the request of the Chairman. He has no choice in the matter. He attends some (not all) of the meetings as they are an opportunity to put his spin on the subject.

"In turn, regional councillors have been supportive of the chairman in the knowledge that you have to show respect to receive it in return."

Respect? That's not respect...

We hope things change in the coming months and years. The split is a problem for Clarington but we lay the blame squarely at the feet of the Regional Councillors (Abernethy, Trim and Novak) with their behaviour toward both the Local Councillors, Staff (not supporting their request for necessary independent studies that were larger in scope than the region wanted) and residents (asking them banal questions in an attempt to discredit their viewpoints).

To her credit, Novak has not declared her undying support for incineration for Clarington, but her actions at Regional Council do show that she is supportive of the Regional Chair's "vision", or so it appears. Again, she does not want to listen to residents and makes it clear when she walks out of meetings when locals are presenting as delegations, as does Mayor Abernethy. We have come to expect such rude behaviour from some of the Regional Councillors such as Councillor Johnson for example, but not from our own Clarington representatives.

Something has got to change, but the blame cannot be laid at the feet of our Local Councillors who seem to be at least trying to do their best for our municipality with poor treatment and lack of information from our 3 regional representatives.

We look forward to an awakening by those three and an effort to work together for the benefit of Clarington rather than only the region in the future. Is it conceivable that over the summer recess they may come back with a renewed vision for Clarington and an ability to work with, rather than 'above' our Local Representatives?

Whoosh! Grand incinerator plans go up in smoke

JOHN BARBER - Globe & Mail
June 14, 2007

Last week, all the regional governments surrounding Toronto were quietly, almost imperceptibly backing away from their grand schemes to "demonstrate leadership" by burning their garbage in allegedly high-tech incinerators. Today they're running, their tiptoe retreat becoming a heel-flashing rout.

First to bolt was York Region, which formally abandoned a long-established partnership with its neighbour, Durham, to build and operate a $250-million mass-burn incinerator on an equal basis.

Instead of paying for half the facility and agreeing to use half its capacity, York has proposed instead to contribute 12 per cent of the cost of building a Durham-owned burner -- and to reduce its obligation to stoke the thing accordingly. Meaning it will never be built.

Yesterday, Halton Region outpaced York when its planning committee, led by new regional chair Gary Carr, voted unanimously and definitively to cancel its once-grandiose plan to build a large incinerator to burn garbage from across Greater Toronto. Halton saw red flags everywhere and responded promptly with a white one.

Today, officials on the other side of the lake are meeting to formalize the divorce of another two regional partners -- Hamilton and Niagara -- who until recently have been happily planning to build a burner together.

Niagara was actually the first of all the regions to recognize the folly of incineration and to change course. Its desertion means that Hamilton, like Durham, is now on its own with a project that just became hundreds of millions of dollars more expensive and far riskier than it first appeared.

The risk factor alone is unmanageable. If nobody can guarantee a supply of burnable garbage - or agree to pay penalties when there's not enough of it to keep the fires lit - nobody will build an incinerator. The United States is crowded with jurisdictions that signed "put-or-pay" contracts to encourage the construction of unnecessary incinerators - and paid handsomely when there wasn't enough garbage to put.

The fear of not being able to "turn off the tap" at a garbage-hungry burner is one reason why Niagara has changed direction, according to regional waste management director Barry Friesen.

"The public has been sold that this is a silver bullet to solve the waste problem," Mr. Friesen said. But it's nothing close to that, he added, emphasizing that incinerators worldwide act as barriers to future waste diversion.

While not formally abandoning Hamilton, Niagara has decided to let someone else take the first shot.

Halton cancelled its plans for the same reasons, according to Mr. Carr, with local public-health authorities intervening effectively. The region has enough landfill capacity to last decades, he said, and it made little sense to commit for decades to a hazardous technology that is said to be rapidly evolving.

"This is a new administration, a new chair and a new council with a whole different attitude to it," Mr. Carr said. Yesterday, they proved it dramatically - demonstrating leadership by deciding unanimously not to build an incinerator.

In truth - and as always in such affairs - it is Toronto that led the fight and deserves most plaudits for the sudden, surprise victory.

As long as Toronto had no place to put its garbage, its refusal to incinerate was considered backward by the suburban smart set who thought they knew a thing or three about modern technology and "acceptable" levels of air pollution. But that smugness evaporated when Toronto acquired its own profitable landfill - and so did the market for potentially burnable Toronto garbage.

It may take a few more months for the last stragglers to depart the late field of battle, but the result is unquestionable. Abandoning their hidebound ideas and irrational prejudices, local politicians throughout Greater Toronto are leading the way on a better path.

jbarber@globeandmail.com

EA: Critique of the Waste Disposal Project

Guest Blog by Paul-André Larose, Ph.D., Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. Submission to Durham Joint Works/Finances & Administration Committee on Tuesday 2007/06/12
- - -
EA: Critique of Reports 2007-J-24 and 2007-J-25 (Waste Disposal Project)

I - Introduction

Members of the Durham Joint Works/F&A Committee and members of the Audience, my name is Paul-André Larose. I reside in Oshawa.

You should know by now that I have a Ph.D. in Physics and that, as a scientist and resident of the Durham Region, I am extremely concerned by the proposal to build an incinerator in the area.

At this point, I should state that I am well aware that some of you take a dim view of people like myself who want to assist BEFORE the shovel gets in the ground. Personally, I would welcome the opportunity of someone trying to assist me on an issue, rather than to reject or ignore it.

For the purpose of this meeting, I will intentionally skip all the known scientific facts that I have previously attempted to articulate about incineration and instead, venture into the world of economic wizardry, i.e. focus on some economic considerations.

Once again, we will see that the NEWS IS NOT GOOD on the incineration economic reality.


II – On Report 2007-J-24

This report stresses that the emphasis will remain on the residential aspect.

Province-wide, the report points out that the waste generation amounts to 14 MTY (million tons/year).

Of this there is 4.6 MTY diverted (presumably recycled) leaving 9.4 MTY requiring disposal.

Of this, some 6.2 MTY are ICI and 3.2 MTY are residential in origin.

This corresponds to 1.1 tonne/year of waste/garbage being generated by each and every resident of this province.

I ask the Works Committee members: do you not feel that it would be better to address the preposterous amount of waste rather than to try to get rid of it through incineration?

Let us put things in perspective and look at what this means at the individual or household level. This corresponds in total (i.e. including recyclable and ICI materials) to 40#/person/week or 160#/week for a family of 4 (or 320# where garbage is picked up every two weeks).

Thus, the two reflections that come to mind are:

1. This level of consumption (and the waste disposal problem that it thus creates) is nothing but OBSCENE.
2. There is twice as much of an issue in the ICI area as in the residential one.

Not only is the ICI waste stream twice as large as that of residential, but much of it is not processed by the Region and its disposal is simply contracted out. There is a need to process this waste in a socially responsible way and thus reduce the overall consumption rate.

Many commercial operators and merchants deplore the lack of recycling capabilities. In fact, I know of a case where ICI recyclables are brought to a residence so as to be put in the “blue box”.

These observations lead to two consequences:

1. the need to address waste disposal issues would be lessened (and thus be much less critical) if we were to address, not only residential, but also ICI generated wastes. There is such a thing as the Pareto principle stating that we should first address 20% of the factors accounting for 80% of the observable. For this reason, the importance of ICI should not be overlooked.
2. the remaining life for the landfill areas would be extended if we adopted a system approach to waste, instead of simply trying to make the result of our wasteful consumption go away through landfill or incineration.

The province-wide landfill capacity available is shown to be between 126 to 141 million tonnes. Is this not true that this should remove the urgency assigned to year 2010?

Is it not true that we have some time to properly address the issue and need not join into the incineration stampede?

In other words, do you not think that there is ample room to address the issue at the source, rather than to build an INCINERATOR to get rid of this blatant display of wastage?


III – On Report 2007-J-25

This report makes a rather disturbing statement: it asserts that “York could not make a commitment at the present time sufficient to retain a 50% ownership level in the project”.

Is this is a mild way to say that Durham Region, after having looked long and hard to find a partner in this venture and thus reduce its financial exposure, is now being asked to foot most of the bill, practically as if it were alone in this venture?

Is there not a little of tokenism in the small ownership that York contemplates?

Would such a small ownership on the part of York not transfer the economic burden entirely to the Durham residents?

Is it not accurate to say that while York would limit its exposure to about $17 – 22 Millions, Durham would possibly be on the hook for $130 – 175 Millions, whereas it was previously limited to $125 Millions in the case of the 50-50 arrangement?

In addition to the capital cost, would it not be exact to say that the processing of a lower tonnage would increase the operating cost, as previous studies have demonstrated, and thus make incineration still more expensive?

Thus, is it not true to say that Durham would end up with the financial risk, the health problems and part of the York garbage and ashes?

Is it not true also to say that this is NOT a very smart move on the part of Durham Region on the basis of economics, in addition to all the other previously outlined arguments which militate against that big “landfill in the sky” resulting from incineration?

Given this financial reality, would it not seem highly improper for this Region to send a delegation to Europe to “study incinerators”?

How many taxpayers’ contributions will it take to pay for a trip of questionable value?


IV – Recommendations

Truly, the economics of the proposed incinerator do not make any more sense than the scientific ones.

For this series of reasons, I hereby request the Durham Joint Committee to put the incinerator concept to rest and start dealing with the garbage issue in a way that addresses the source of the problem, rather than its manifestations.

This is somewhat akin to drug use and misuse; one can use drugs to kill the pain, i.e. the manifestations, without really resolving the reason for such pain or one can instead address the root cause of the malaise, i.e. the source.
- - -

Executive Summary

The financial implications of the project are such that incineration should be viewed as a flawed project both from the financial point of view as from other previously discussed aspects such as Public and Environmental Health.
= = =

Health Implications of the Proposed Waste Disposal Facility

Guest Blog by Paul-André Larose, Ph.D., Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. Submission to Clarington GPA Committee on Friday 2007/06/08

Health Implications of the Proposed Waste Disposal Facility

(… or, “it is difficult to keep the Ship of State afloat if the importance of hull integrity is not being appreciated!”)

I - Introduction

Members of the Clarington GPA Committee and members of the Audience, my name is Paul-André Larose. I reside in Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. The Clerk should note that I will forward a digital version of this presentation.

I have a Ph.D. in Physics. As a scientist and resident of the Durham Region, I am extremely concerned by the proposal to build an incinerator in the area.

First however, I want to stress that I do not deny that we have to do something with our waste; like death and taxes, this is a reality that cannot be ignored. And addressing this cannot be without some consequences.

A solution must be identified on the basis of the optimization of certain variables, while not adversely impacting certain others, known as “fixed constraints”.

In particular, it is essential not to attempt to address the waste disposal issue in a way that will create new problems elsewhere, particularly in the public health area.

II – Concerns

Why am I concerned about the implications of what is currently being contemplated?

I am concerned because we appear to be “putting the cart before the horse”, namely we evaluate and debate potential locations without having prior examined the health implications of the proposed technology.

I am concerned because, with incineration, there will be unavoidable (and well-known) negative health and environmental consequences.

I am concerned because this goes against the sustainability of our agriculture, our environment and our health. Indeed, we are stewards of this world and we should always remember this Kenyan proverb:
“Take care of this Earth; your parents did not give it to you; your children lent it to you.”

I am concerned because there is now ample evidence on chemical burdening, increasing cancer rates and decreasing human fertility rates; this is not a speculative issue.

I am concerned because, as a resident of this country, I am ashamed of the inaction of our federal government in the critical matter of environmental protection; I want Durham Region to take an enlightened action, not compound the problem.

All of these are issues that should truly alarm all of us.

Moreover, I should state that, as a resident of the Region, I am concerned that I will UNWILLINGLY be contributing to the problem of what I suspect, if rationality prevails, will be an UNWILLING host.

III - Implications

“So what’s the fuss?”, one may ask. This technology will introduce two formidable enemies into the biosphere:
dioxins and furans, whose toxic concentrations are measured in pico-grammes, i.e. in billionth of a billionth of a gram (10**-12 g) or a billionth of a microgram;
nano-particulates, i.e. particles whose linear dimensions are of the order of the nanometre (10**-9 metre), that can readily migrate through membranes such as lung partitions and thus find their way into the blood stream and accumulate in organs (recall that visible light is in the 400 to 700 nm).

This is part of what we know as scientific FACTS.

For these substances, there are NO Safe Minimum Exposure levels and doses. Nano-particulates are known to migrate through partitions such as pulmonary walls and end up within the human organs. In dealing with such substances, we cannot adopt a “Solution by Dilution” approach.

It should be pointed out that incineration will not only have negative consequences on public health, but also on health care costs; this will no doubt be of interest to those interested in monetary matters.

IV – By-products

Incineration will NOT eliminate the need for landfill. In fact, it may exacerbate it, as the landfill requirements not fall into the hazardous by-products category.

Typically an incinerator leaves some 30% weight in terms of pit ashes and fly ashes; these must be disposed of in a secure landfill site. For a 250kt/year incinerator, this means 75kt/year ashes, or about 200 tons/day (calendar day).

With incineration, some 70% of the incinerated matter also go up the stack. For a 250kt/year incinerator, this corresponds to 175kt/year being sent in the atmosphere, or about 480 tons/day (calendar day).

This is also part of what we know as FACTS. Do I need to tell you where all of this is going to end up?


V – The Precautionary Principle

There are also FACTS whose long-term consequences are still speculative, i.e. we suspect them and they are yet not clear.

The literature is replete with instances of contamination on individuals who did not come in contact (or so they thought) with offending chemicals, i.e.
chemical burden on the human body (Federal Parliamentarians – Jan. 2006);
genetic damage and human fertility (W.H.O. conference speaker – Fall of 1999).

Even in the case of persons who did come in contact with a substance, compliance with the “accepted norm” is not a guarantee that the operation is safe, as such norms reflect the knowledge of the day.

For example, there is the tragic case of New Brunswick workers exposed decades ago to toxins and who are now suffering the consequences. Their exposure levels were, at the time, well within the “accepted norms”. There are numerous other instances with unexpected side effects, e.g. thalidomide, VIOX, radiation doses, lead piping, etc…

The fact that the exposure was, at one time, within legal limits now provides little solace to those whose health was irretrievably affected. In critical issues, a technology should NOT be accepted simply because it meets certain “standards” then in force.

In such instances, would it not be eminently reasonable not to jeopardize the single planet and the single life that we have by adopting a precautionary approach in the matter?


VI – Recommendations

For this and many other reasons, I hereby request the Clarington Council to clearly recognize the health aspects perils associated with the selection of any waste treatment technology.

It should adopt a position that Public Health and Environmental Concerns are primary issues that cannot, under any circumstances or any pretense, be compromised or sacrificed.

It should mandate its representatives to Regional Council to articulate this position.

It should acknowledge that good stewardship is good environmentalism which itself is good economics.
- - -

Executive Summary

Any waste disposal technology that has a negative impact on Public and Environmental Health should not be considered as suitable for waste management purposes.
= = =

The evidence is in: Halton's incinerator folly is toast

JOHN BARBER - Globe & Mail
June 6, 2007

Once again, on behalf of all Torontonians, allow me to extend sincere gratitude to the suburban municipalities now flirting seriously with incineration and similar "thermal treatments" of household wastes. Every step forward they take reconfirms the folly of their path.

But the department headed by Bob Nosal, medical officer of health for Halton Region, deserves special credit for offering the most important public service so far: a scarlet-red flag warning the easily deceived that building any such device, despite prevailing happy talk about "acceptable" levels of pollution, will hurt people - or, to use the phrase preferred by Halton bureaucrats, "be associated with some increase in adverse health impacts."

Until now, the folly of incineration has emerged in the form of inconvenient truths popping out of the environmental assessments of impending new incinerators in Durham and Niagara - hard evidence about emissions, costs and alternatives to replace the easy assurances heard earlier on the sales floor.

Dr. Nosal's intervention is the first rebellion to emerge from within the ranks of the promoters.

It takes the benign form of a peer review of "Step 4a" of the region's plan to build an incinerator, in which it purported to identify and describe the prospective facility's "potential health and environmental effects." Written by medical scientist David Pengelly, recent recipient of a City of Toronto Green award for his work on air quality, the review gently but thoroughly demolishes official assurances that modern incinerators are benign.

"I'm a scientist," Dr. Pengelly said in an interview. "I'm not convinced by assertions, I'm convinced by evidence." The Halton report, he added, offered no evidence to support the contention that modern incinerators, despite being cleaner than their predecessors, are in fact safe. They emit the same dangerous pollutants as earlier incinerators, albeit less of them. But how much is that? Step 4a doesn't say.

"I'm prepared to accept that things are better than they were," he said. "My problem was that there wasn't very specific scientific evidence brought out to show how much better they are."

Dr. Nosal, the official who commissioned the review, is already advocating strict abatement of existing pollution in Halton's already "taxed" airshed - a position unlikely to herald approval of new sources of dangerous pollution. He and his crew deserve "a great deal of credit for taking an active role in making sure that these health issues are addressed right from the very beginning," Dr. Pengelly said. "I can tell you that's not happening in other municipalities."

Leaving aside its welcome exposé of incineration's health hazards, the Halton report includes more than enough latent ammunition to destroy any hope a burner might soon be built there. The idea is absurd on its face: Halton's existing landfill is big enough to last until 2030, long before which it could easily be expanded to take garbage until the last person alive today is gone.

Mercifully, the bureaucrats have abandoned their nutty idea that Halton should "take a leadership role" by building a giant incinerator to compete with facilities throughout the province. Unlike some of their colleagues elsewhere, they acknowledge that recent developments - especially the sudden appearance of 50 million tonnes of new landfill capacity in Southern Ontario - have destroyed the viability of such schemes. Faced with the disappointing fact that Halton has no need for an incinerator, they are reduced to recommending a teeny tiny one.

This ongoing retreat is a fascinating event for which suburban taxpayers - and everybody who breathes - should be grateful.

Stripped of its rationale, its hazards exposed, the current push to incinerate is revealed as a kind of infrastructure adventurism, led by a tunnel-visioned cadre of engineers and consultants, that can be brought to a halt with no negative consequences.

Durham/York Residual Waste Study - PUBLIC NOTICE

Energy-from-waste project update and
Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Study:
Public Information Sessions

The Regions of Durham and York are participating in a joint study to find a better way to manage the residual waste (garbage) remaining after maximizing recycling and composting programs. Since 2004, the two municipalities have been addressing the social, environmental and financial impacts of resolving this issue by way of an “Individual” Environmental Assessment (EA) under the Provincial EA Act. A Joint Waste Management Group comprised of residents, local politicians and Regional staff oversees the project and the general public is involved through the public information session process.

A short-list of sites has been identified and consideration of the final site is underway using a series of evaluation criteria developed through the EA public consultation process. Four sites in Clarington have been identified as potential sites.

An important component of the EA study is to investigate the potential impact to human and ecological health from an energy-from-waste (EFW) facility. The Regions initiated a health and ecological risk assessment study in 2006 and the results will be presented at the public information sessions as shown below.

On June 18, the Region of Durham will be hosting a drop-in style information session on the EFW project. Sessions on June 20, 27 and 28 will update residents on the EFW project as well as results of the health and environmental risk study. Additional information sessions are also planned in York Region. Visit the study website for information on all public information sessions.

An informal drop-in information session
will be held from 2 to 7 p.m.
Monday, June 18
Faith United Church
1778 Nash Road
Courtice

All other information sessions will be held from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m.
Formal presentations begin at 7:00 p.m. at the locations shown below

Wednesday, June 20
Clarington Beech Centre
26 Beech Avenue
Bowmanville

Wednesday, June 27
Faith United Church
1778 Nash Road
Courtice

Thursday, June 28
Newcastle Hall
20 King Street West
Newcastle

To review the EA study documentation, please:
· Visit your local municipal office or library.
· Visit the study web site at http://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/.
· Call 1-866-398-4423.

*********************************

It's good that we should finally get "results of the health and environmental risk study". Many people will be judging the thoroughness and quality of that information, especially due to the fact that so many don't seem to have much confidence in the objectivity or completeness of information presented to residents OR to municipal politicians to date.

The Regions of Durham and York are participating in a joint study to find a better way to manage the residual waste (garbage) remaining after maximizing recycling and composting programs.

We don't feel that continued effort or maximizing effort toward reducing the waste stream is a priority for Durham Region. What is our present diversion rate? The numbers vary, depending on who you ask and when you ask the question, but we have been told by the Region that it is as high as 55% or as low as 44%. At any rate, they seem to be saying that we won't ever get much beyond where we are now. Well, that is certainly true if they don't concentrate heavily on it - on educating the public, on making more services available (such as removal of batteries, electronic equipment and other hazardous household waste from the garbage stream). They will need to 'feed' the incinerator, and are even discussing shipping IN waste from neighbouring regions such as Peterborough, Northumberland, etc. Is this a "made in Durham" solution? On a "put or pay" system, if either of the municipalities does not provide enough garbage to keep the incinerator burning efficiently, they must pay (in taxpayer's dollars).

Toronto's goal for 2010 is 70% waste diversion. Other cities have an even more aggressive target. The city of Markham is already at a 70% diversion rate after only a little over 2 years of aggressive education and public participation, and are aiming for 75% by next year. They have plans to continuously increase diversion and to get to as close to 100% diversion as they can by 2010. Check out Halifax, Seattle, and other communities in California, New Zealand, and now India to see the growing trend toward the "zero-waste approach".

Yes there is garbage. Yes we need to get rid of it. But we also need to concentrate on producing less of it and smarter ways of dealing with what is left that can't be reduced, reused, recycled or re-invented.

If we continue down the path toward incineration, it is another "out of sight, out of mind" scenario. Landfill will still be needed for the ash produced by incinerating the garbage. And the amount of toxins being released into our already polluted air will increase significantly. Greenhouse gasses and climate change should be a concern, and even more of a concern is the health of residents not only close to the incinerator, but also those farther away since those airborne pollutants, the toxins and chemicals, are spread far and wide.

It is imperative that our politicians take a step back, stop forcing this project through in an accelerated time frame, and go back to seriously consider Alternatives To their present choice of "thermal technology". The time to do that is NOW.

We hope to see a lot of residents at these upcoming Public Information Sessions, especially from Clarington but also from all over Durham Region and from York Region too. We hope residents will ask a LOT of questions and not be satisfied with partial answers, round-about answers, innuendo rather than cold, hard facts.

Stay tuned.

Waste Diversion and Stabilized Landfill - a choice

Niagara Region and the City of Hamilton partnered to undertake the WastePlan EA Study to develop long-term disposal capacity for municipal waste remaining after diversion serving the needs of both municipalities. Eight distinct disposal options were considered and evaluated in the study. The options can be organized into three general categories as follows:

1. Mechanical and biological treatment (MBT) and landfilling of stabilized residuals (with an option to include biogas recovery).

2. Thermal treatment (with options including recovery of materials from the ash/char, alternative fuel, and biogas recovery).

3. Conventional landfill (including an option of landfill gas recovery and utilization).

This partnership was begun in Fall, 2003.

In December of 2005 a report was prepared for Niagara/Hamilton Joint Group entitled ‘Draft Report on the Evaluation of “Alternatives To” and Selection of a Preferred Disposal System’ which recommended thermal technology with recovery of energy and recyclables as the preferred option. MBT and stabilized landfill was identified as the next preferred alternative, and was the preferred landfill-based option. (Why do they characterize MBT and stabilized as a landfill-based option without the zero waste component included? Where is Zero Waste as an option?)

Sound familiar? The same "Alternatives To" were suggested to Durham Region, with the same recommendation of preferred option - thermal technology with recovery of energy (EFW), which Durham Region accepted without further investigation. Who were the consultants who made this recommendation to Niagara Region and the City of Hamilton? MacViro and Jacques Whitford. Same consultants that Durham Region hired. Tell me Durham Region didn't know ahead of time what the recommendation would be. If they didn't, why not? Did they pay for all these recommendations, full price, since the "Alternatives To" report had already been done for Hamilton/Niagara and who knows how many others previously? Gosh, some of the charts look SO familiar.

Following release of the December 2005 report a number of comments were received from the public and other stakeholder groups regarding the study and its recommendations. (Gosh, they didn't comment BEFORE the report was received - which has been a criticism by one resident and several Regional Councillors, including our own Mr. Trim, that residents were not making delegations to Council BEFORE getting the sparse information from the information sessions hosted by the Region).

While some of these supported the recommended option, other comments from some non-governmental organizations as well as the public opposed the preferred option. (Opposition from both groups is higher in Clarington - and was also in East Gwillimbury - due to further information gleaned in part from further investigation done by the Niagara/Hamilton Waste Plan Joint Working Group - something NOT done yet by Durham Region).

In particular, questions were raised about the evaluation of the stabilized landfill options. These comments led the WastePlan Joint Working Group to request additional information on stabilized landfill technology, and in particular a comparison of stabilized landfill technology relative to conventional technology landfill. So a Study of Stabilized Landfill was prepared by Gartner Lee and Golder Associates, independent consultants, not MacViro. It was completed in March, 2007, and since that time, Niagara has decided it will NOT agree to incineration, and instead has chosen increased waste diversion with stabilized landfill as the best course of action to take.

The Gartner Lee Stabilized Landfill Report was also provided to MacViro but apparently didn't change their pro-incineration recommendations to Durham Region.

A few facts: MBT treatment and stabilized landfill technology is practiced much more extensively in Europe than North America. A key reason for this difference is the requirements of the European Union’s Landfill Directive 1999/31/CE, which states:

1. only pre-treated wastes are allowed to be landfilled after July 2001; and
2. the amount of biologically degradable MSW to be landfilled must be reduced in a phased approach to 75% by July 2006, to 50% by July 2009, and to 35% by July 2016 of the total amount of biologically degradable MSW produced in 1995.

Definition of Stabilized Landfill: A stabilized landfill accepts waste materials which have been pre-processed, or stabilized, mainly to reduce the readily biodegradable organic fraction of the waste prior to landfilling so that the potential for landfill gas generation is diminished and leachate strength is reduced. Stabilization of the waste stream occurs through a group of processes typically known as mechanical and biological treatment (MBT), which can include removal of recyclables, shredding, removal of refuse derived fuel (RDF), aerobic or anaerobic composting, and desiccation. Waste delivered to an MBT facility has typically already undergone some form of source separation.

From the Stabilized Landfill Summary Report:

The development of MBT and stabilized landfill sites in EU were driven by the need to comply with the EU directive 1999/31/CE which required a progressive ban on the disposal of biologically degradable organics in landfills. Italy and Germany have introduced different national regulations to comply with the EU directive with a key difference being the extent of stabilization required prior to landfill. The advent of MBT plants is also on the horizon in the United Kingdom with several facilities just getting into operation or well into the permitting phase. In all the cases indicated above, significant efforts are in place to implement 3R programs to reduce the volumes of material needing to be processed, efforts which in many cases lead to source separation programs, all to varying degrees.

A fraction of the MBT processed material is processed in incinerators prior to final disposal since the process can generate RDF material with a relatively high calorific value.

In certain jurisdictions, MBT and stabilized landfill sites are seen as preferable to the alternative of incinerators (conventional landfills are no longer an option in EU countries except in the UK which is using an allowance for an additional 4 years to comply). The main drivers for this preference are (Faviano, 2005):
a) lower cost;
b) greater flexibility (e.g., don’t have to meet a minimum through-put and calorific value of the waste for cost effectiveness and efficient operation); and
c) proven examples of successful facilities.

So, are we behind the times, going with old technology that is non-sustainable, rather than thinking ahead to the future, and changing the way we look at garbage in the first place?

One other thing - let us look at the time-frame for these Niagara/Hamilton studies.

Fall 2003 - Partnership between Niagara and Hamilton
January to August 2004 - Development of Draft EA Terms of Reference
August 2004 to February 2005 - Ministerial review of Terms of Reference and approval of document on Feb 7/05
February 2005 - Early 2007 - EA Study of the Niagara-Hamilton WastePlan is undertaken resulting in the selection of a preferred approach, technology and sites. Preferred approach - Waste Diversion and Stabilized Landfill.

Now contrast that with the greatly accelerated time line for Durham Region. Because the Province has approved an additional bank of landfill (some of which could/should be made into stabilized landfill sites as approvals are basically the same from the Province), there is no longer the 2010 emergency time frame as the Region and it's consultants keep insisting there is. Why not take a little longer to do it RIGHT instead of doing it FAST.

And all this ties in with the Region trying to limit the independent studies that Clarington wants to do (at least staff and our local councillors do). More on that next time.

We must once again thank Councillors Foster, Hooper, Robinson and Woo for going the extra mile to ensure Clarington is able to do its due diligence and get INDEPENDENT peer review and necessary studies done for the benefit of our municipality and residents, not for the benefit of Durham Region.