Sludge Watch ==> Ontario - York and Durham Regions voted to incinerate waste

[maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca]

Sludgewatch Admin:

Here is another story outlining the emerging 'incineration pro and con' 
argument that is escalating in Ontario.  But where are the workshops, the 
discussion forums, the studies?  They are not there.

Self serving urbanites in Toronto have forced their sludge wastes into the 
rural hinterland where it is smeared on farm lands.  That means 100% of the 
mercury, 100% of the dioxins, 100% of the pathogens, 100% of the endocrine 
disruptors, 100% of greenhouse gases like methane are discharged to the 
ambient environment....putting at risk rural drinking water, the ozone 
layer, fish, and the food we eat.  The same Toronto urbanites have refused 
to allow for a real scientific evaluation of Toronto sludge.  The 
Environmental Assessment of the sewage treatment plant was supposed to 
evaluate the alternatives : land application, incineration, land fill.  But 
then they pulled the environmental evaluation of the biosolids out of the 
plant's environmental assessment!

Indeed, even the so-called health study on Toronto's sludge pellets included 
no assessment of whether the pellets were even LEGAL for SALE!  *They are 
not.  But this kind of sneaky 'scoping' of results has become routine.  
Sludge is so politicized that there is no science in it!

What we do with sludge in Southern Ontario is such a misery in the 
environment that we need to at least evaluate the alternatives.  Indeed, 
15-sludge-trucks-a-day-with-nowhere-to-go  on August 1st tell us we urgently 
need to evaluate our alternatives.

.....................................................................................................


www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060624.GARBAGE24/TPStory/TPNational/Ontario/

POSTED ON 24/06/06


York, Durham add fuel to incineration debate
ALEXANDRA SHIMO

Time is running out for a solution to Toronto's trash.

As of Aug. 1, a Michigan landfill will close its gates to the 15 trucks of 
sewage sludge (treated human waste) that are delivered daily. At present, 
the excrement still needs a home. Which is why decisions from York and 
Durham councils this week carried such weight.

Both councils voted to incinerate their waste, and will now look for an 
appropriate site. Those decisions could affect what happens in Toronto, said 
Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller.

"The public debate on incineration is on," Mr. Miller said. "The York-Durham 
incinerator will become the test case for other municipalities."

Although Durham and York regional councils have given the go-ahead to 
incineration -- on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively -- the public still 
needs to get on board before the plans are finalized. One impediment to 
public approval is that most people think incineration is a dirty, toxic 
technology, Mr. Miller said. This view is out of date, he said.

"Right up until three or four years ago, we had incinerators that were very 
bad for carcinogens. These produced high levels of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen 
oxides and heavy metals. People remember that, and it's meant we've shunned 
incinerators even through the technology has changed."

The latest incinerators produce fewer carcinogens than landfills do, said 
Sebnem Madrali, project engineer for Bioenergy Development Program at 
Natural Resources Canada. Part of her job is to assess the efficacy of 
different waste-disposal systems. Both landfills and incinerators have to 
meet Ontario emission standards for water, air and soil pollution, but they 
still produce some toxic substances, she said.

A 1999 study published by the Ontario Environment Ministry found that 
incinerators were marginally better for human health and the environment 
than landfills. Even the most modern landfills -- those that capture their 
emissions to produce energy -- emit methane, carbon monoxide and several 
carcinogens, Ms. Madrali said.

Some environmentalists say incineration technology has been held back by 
politics, rather than scientific argument.

"Incineration is hard to sell politically," said Nola-Kate Seymoar, 
president of the International Centre for Sustainable Cities. "There is a 
big fear about what toxins are released, and that means it is hard to 
propose incineration as a clean and sustainable technology.

"But many countries are using the technology as a clean and sustainable way 
to generation energy," she said. "They have waste-to-energy facilities in 
Denmark, Sweden and Tokyo. In San Salvador, the methane gas from burning 
garbage lights the soccer fields on top of the dump sites. The technology 
has developed so much that you can burn garbage while releasing very few 
toxins."

The Greater Vancouver Regional District waste-to-energy facility in Burnaby 
is one example of a successful incinerator, Dr. Seymoar said. The facility, 
opened in 1988, burns 275,000 tonnes of household waste a year, and converts 
the heat generated to electricity. The steam is sold to a local paper mill 
and the power to B.C. Hydro, and these considerably offset the operating 
costs.

Such a facility would be ideal for Toronto, she said. But first, the many 
critics of incineration would have to be convinced.

While York and Durham have given the technology the go-ahead, it will likely 
be a tougher sell in Toronto. Mayor David Miller has spoken out against 
incineration; so has Premier Dalton McGuinty. Several environmental 
organizations, such as the Pembina Institute and Toronto Environmental 
Alliance, have also come out against it.

But Gord Miller, the environmental commissioner, thinks opinions can be 
swayed.

"Even if we manage to reach our target of 60 per cent recycling, we still 
have millions of tonnes of waste to deal with. We need a frank and open 
discussion on what options are out there. This is a problem that's getting 
worse, and yet we aren't doing enough to deal with it."