Sludge Watch ==> Trash now a burning issue

[maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca]

Sludgewatch Admin:

Using sludge as a fuel is a reality in much of the world.  Sludge fuel lends 
itself to better pollution emission controls than using trash as fuel.  
Sludge is a more consistent fuel ...and could be engineered more precisely.

In one stroke you could meet a multitude of environmental goals...

-reduce greenhouse gases from the sludge,

- reduce the greenhouse cases and fossil fuels from trucking the sludge to 
distant farms and landfills,

-use the sludge to replace the dirty burning coal generation we are using 
now,

- destroy prions and other persistant pathogens, pharmacueticals in the 
sludge, and

- develop the sludge for a clean renewable energy source to power our 
cities, and

- stop land application of sludge thus protecting groundwater, soils, public 
health and the food chain from sludge contamination....and protect the 
aquatic environment in places like Victoria BC that do ocean dumping.

Of course, you would need good air emissions controls...but currently 
available technologies are a huge improvement on the old hearth incinerators 
and coal plants that are being phased out.
There has been a demonization in some circles of any 'thermal'  or 
'incineration' solutions.  We need to see what kinds of technology are 
available that have the lowest environmental implications.

Sludge is a fact of life. The chemcial, pathogen, heavy metal, 
pharmacuetical components of sludge are currently  doing irreversable damage 
to the rural environment through land application....with a heavy toll on 
climate change and damage to public health.  Some cities still discharge 
directly to the ocean.  These environmental impacts must not be forgotten 
when examining the pros and cons of newer sludge management technologies.


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


Trash now a burning issue
by KERRY GILLESPIE, The Toronto Star May 08, 2006

Incinerating the garbage that Ontario trucks to Michigan landfills could 
produce enough power for about 200,000 homes, not enough to solve the 
province's looming energy crisis but certainly a help.
As a double bonus, it could also be the answer to Ontario's waste-disposal 
crisis.

"There are jurisdictions throughout the world that use energy from waste ... 
They have (as) rigorous environmental standards as we do, in Europe, so if 
they can do it, the question is: Why can't we?" says Energy Minister Donna 
Cansfield.

A big reason is the provincial government's refusal to get involved and lead 
a public debate or endorse incineration and other thermal technologies, says 
Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller.
"I don't hear any public debate on these issues. I don't hear any kind of 
forums or open houses ... on energy from waste. All I hear is: `We don't 
want to talk about this,'" said Miller, who serves as the province's 
environment watchdog.

Ontario is in the midst of a waste-disposal crisis, with municipalities and 
businesses sending nearly 4 million tonnes of garbage to Michigan each year, 
much of it from the Greater Toronto Area.

Ontario also doesn't have enough electrical generating capacity and faces 
the prospect of brownouts, buying expensive imported power or putting 
billions of dollars into new power plants.

These two shortages, combined with community opposition to building new 
landfills, has some municipalities starting to look at incinerators and 
other thermal technologies.

York and Durham regions, for example, start three days of public meetings 
tomorrowon the possibility of building an energy-from-waste incinerator to 
deal with what they can't recycle or divert. But in absence of a provincial 
position on incineration, municipalities find themselves sandwiched between 
environmentalists who say burning garbage isn't safe and proponents of 
various technologies who promise to solve all their problems.

"The Ministry of the Environment has to look at this closely and endorse 
general technologies. They should enter into the debate and, if they're 
asked, `Is it possible to design and operate energy-from-waste facilities 
within safe parameters,' they should be prepared to say `yes'" Miller said.

So, is Environment Minister Laurel Broten willing to do this?

No. Broten says she's "open" to having new energy-from-waste facilities in 
Ontario, but she also says it's not her job to lead a public debate or 
broadly endorse technologies.

"We're willing to look at new technologies and support (municipalities) in 
their endeavours to look at new technologies," Broten said.

"We will make a determination based on each and every application, but not a 
broad stroke perspective on what is clean and what is not clean in the 
abstract. That doesn't sufficiently protect Ontarians," she said.

Properly built, well-run and regulated, incineration is perfectly safe, 
Miller said.

"The Ministry of the Environment understands this. They're just quiet on 
it," he said. The general public, though, isn't so sure, he added.

"In Ontario, we have a legacy of poorly managed facilities; we had some 
problems with incinerators, there is no question and so the public is jaded, 
they should be. They know it was bad," Miller said.

That's why proponents with other thermal technologies, like gasification 
which heats garbage at high heat but doesn't actually put it to an open 
flame, take great pains to say: "It's not incineration."

But, times — and technologies — have changed, Miller said.

`We have an incinerator right here in Peel region that is meeting all the 
standards.'
Gord Miller, Environmental Commissioner

"We have an incinerator right here in Peel region that is meeting all the 
standards," he said, adding Europeans have also proved incineration is safe.

"There's a role for the provincial government to restore the public trust," 
he said.

Until that happens, municipal councillors will have a tough time navigating 
between those who oppose incineration and those who favour it.

"They're going to have to fight it out and that's not fair for 
municipalities that are bold enough to come forward," Miller said.

So far, Niagara, Hamilton, York and Durham have stepped into the fray and 
said they're interested in incineration.

Toronto, which ships the most trash to Michigan, is also undertaking an 
environmental assessment that will look at all the options, including 
incineration. But the mayor and some councillors have already said they 
oppose incineration.

Ottawa and Southgate Township, in the Collingwood-area, want to do 
small-scale pilot projects on gasification technologies.

But municipalities shouldn't think that energy from waste is a magic bullet, 
warns Nigel Guildford, a board member of the Ontario Waste Management 
Association, which represents private waste industry players.

Just as the debate needs less "hysterical scare mongering" it also needs 
less "uninformed promotion," said Guildford. "Energy from waste is not a 
cheap way to produce power, it is an expensive way to get rid of garbage," 
he said.

Peel Region, for example, pays $130 a tonne to collect and ship garbage to 
Michigan, compared to $170 to collect it, burn it at the Algonquin Power 
incinerator, and pay to dispose of the fly ash in a hazardous waste 
landfill.

That makes incineration more expensive than landfill but about the same 
price as some recycling measures. Toronto's green-bin organics program, for 
example, costs $165 a tonne.

The debate around energy from waste needs to be based on "good science, good 
engineering and good economics," Guildford said.

That may not be possible right now.

"There's a complete absence of coherent provincial policy that would allow 
energy from waste to be developed as part of an integrated waste-management 
system," he said.

Andrew Campbell, York Region's director of waste management, is hoping, 
through public meetings this week, that York and Durham residents will have 
a better understanding of the options.

"Now that the word incineration is out there, we may get more people out. I 
really want people to be educated about what modern incineration is," 
Campbell said.

Campbell believes there is strong public support for modern incineration in 
the region because residents don't want another Keele Valley landfill or to 
keep shipping to Michigan.

"If you prohibit energy from waste facilities, what happens to the garbage? 
Now we're trucking it to Michigan. Is that a viable solution? Or we'll be 
creating large super landfills. Is that an environmentally benign solution? 
>From my perspective, one has to look at it holistically," Environmental 
Commissioner Miller said.

The energy minister has a similar view.

"You bury the garbage to get the methane to get the electricity," said 
Cansfield, referring to the collection of landfill gas. "You can deal with 
the garbage without burying it to get the electricity. To me it makes sense 
to connect the other two and forget about the burying."