Sludge Watch ==> A Burning Issue - Note: 600, 000 burned tires turn into Halifax sludge fertilizer

[Maureen Reilly]

Sludgewatch Admin:

Halifax - in a moment of raw goofiness...decided to allow N-Viro to mix 
their sewage sludge with contaminated cement kiln dust from the Lafarge 
Brookfield cement kiln.  This kiln already has contaminated cement kiln dust 
(CKD in the trade) with high levels of thallium and other metals from the 
contaminated used oil they co-burn to make cement.  Now the Lafarge plant 
wants to burn 600,000 used tires as well.

But the result will be cement kiln dust that is even more highly 
contaminated.  So when it is mixed 50-50 with Halifax sewage sludge the 
resulting N-Viro so called 'fertilizer' will be even more contaminated.

Lafarge has greedy eyes for the tipping fees associated with waste burning 
and it looks like they don't care anything about the neighbours or the 
resulting impact on the N-Viro sludge 'products' - the 'fertilizer' made 
with their industrial leavings.   Resdents should insist that the Canadian 
Food Inspection Agency review the impact that the contaminated cement kiln 
dust will have on the Nviro 'fertilizer'.  Lets face it...burning wastes, 
making cement, and creating fertilizers are three very different things. 
Lafarge should figure out what industry they are in a do a good job of that.


The public should demand to see the test results on whether the quality of 
cement from Lafarge Brookfield is already compromised from waste burning.  
The quality of the cement can also be compromised by burning wastes mid 
kiln.  Lafarge has already been successfully sued for a crumbling 
subdivision in Ottawa due to contaminated product.

See the second story on this page for details on how Lafarge lost the 
crumbling subdivision lawsuit with punative costs.
.............................................................................

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

>From :  CABOT Citizens Against Burning of Tires
shorttslakeresidents at hotmail.com

Sent :  March 23, 2007 10:26:04 AM


An Information Meeting

A Burning Issue:

An Application from Brookfield Cement Plant to Burn 600,000 of Nova Scotia's 
used tires/year

Where?  St John's United Church, 6225 Willow Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia

When?  Wed., April 4th, 2007

Time:  7o'clock

You are invited to Participate:

1. CABOT:  Citizens Against Burning of Tires

2. DOEL: N.S Department of Environment and Labor

3. Brookfield Lafarge Cement Plant

4. Presentation:  The Making of Cement

5. Hon. Bill Casey

6. Premier Rodney MacDonald

    Minister of Environment:  Hon. Mark Parent

7. Leader Liberal Party:  Michel Samson

    Liberal Environmental Critic:  Keith Colwell

8. Leader NDP Darrell Dexter

   NDP Environmental Critic:  Michelle Raymond

9. Members of the Nova Scotia Legislature

Presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each.

A Question Period will follow.

Question will be limited to 2 minutes, responses will be limited to 2 
minutes.






http://www.citizensagainstburningoftires.ca


Citizens Against Burning of Tires, CABOT
P.O. Box 285
Brookfield, Nova Scotia
B0N 1C0

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

http://www.propertyshop.ca/articles.cfm?action=show&articleid=335

Bob Aaron
February 17, 2001


Cement case hard to work out





For 137 people in eastern Ontario, the purchase of their homes was the 
realization of a dream. For some it was their first home, and for others it 
was their retirement home. None of them could have foreseen the nightmare 
that awaited them.

All of the homes were located between Hawkesbury and Rockland, in the 
eastern reaches of the province, and further east into Quebec as far as 
Montebello. They were all brand new, and most were built and purchased in 
1986 or 1987.

Within the first year after the purchase, the proud owners started 
experiencing problems with the foundations. The walls started growing a 
fluffy white powder known as efflorescence. The concrete inside and outside 
above grade started deteriorating and disintegrating. The foundation walls 
were usually wet, and water was leaking into the basements. Black mould was 
growing on the walls, and many began to crack. Substantial deterioration of 
the parging occurred on the exposed exterior surfaces.

All attempts to repair the problems by applying latex or epoxy, or the 
installation of dehumidifiers and air exchangers failed. For years, no-one 
could figure out what the problem was.

Finally, in 1992, the Ontario New Home Warranty Program got involved after 
receiving a large number of complaints. ONHWP hired experts to investigate 
and test the concrete, and they reported that the concrete in the foundation 
of each one of the houses was structurally unsound. The only viable solution 
was a complete removal and replacement the foundations in each and every 
house - at a cost of about $100,000 each.

Unfortunately, most of the homeowners had not filed claims with the warranty 
program within what was then a five-year guarantee period. The only 
alternative was the court system.

And so began what Superior Court Justice Albert Roy last year called the 
“infamous cement case.” It involved 137 plaintiffs suing three main 
defendants, who in turn sued 30 different insurance companies.

When the trial started in a special courtroom in September, 1997, there were 
50 lawyers present. The proceedings were bilingual, and everything had to be 
translated simultaneously. The trial took 16 months, and involved 110 
witnesses, of whom 15 were experts. Some 600 exhibits, representing tons of 
paper, were put into evidence.

Most of the plaintiffs had been coping with their deteriorating basements 
for more than 10 years. They didn't have the use of the basements and 
couldn't enjoy their homes. With the concrete continually deteriorating, 
would the walls collapse before being replaced? The owners couldn't sell, 
couldn't rent, and couldn't finance to repair. Nor could they abandon their 
homes and live elsewhere.

The main defendants were Bertrand & Frere Construction Company Limited, the 
ready-mix operator which supplied concrete for all of the foundations, and 
Lafarge Canada Inc., a large multi-national which supplied cement powder and 
fly ash used in the batching of the concrete.

Fly ash is a by-product of coal-powered electrical generation, and although 
not inherently dangerous, the fly ash formula used in preparation of 
Bertrand's concrete clearly made it unsuitable for use in house foundations.

In his judgment last April, Justice Roy found Lafarge 80 per-cent 
responsible, and Bertrand 20 per-cent responsible for replacing all of the 
foundations. Total damages were about $15 million plus interest. The 
judgment alone was more than 500 paragraphs and 50,000 words.

In December, Roy handed down his ruling on costs, penalizing Lafarge with 90 
per-cent of the solicitor-client costs of the plaintiffs because its counsel 
needlessly lengthened the trial, and hitting Bertrand with 10 per cent.

Unfortunately, the nightmare of the deteriorating foundations is far from 
over for everybody involved. Not only has the trial decision been appealed, 
with a hearing scheduled for May, but Son of Cement Case has already been 
started.

At the time the original 137 homeowners started their joint action against 
Lafarge and Bertrand, there was no provision in law for class actions. For 
various reasons, a number of homeowners were prevented from joining the main 
court case.

They have now banded together using Hawkesbury, Ont., lawyer Robert Smith to 
start a class action. Smith told Law Times last month that the class action 
had been certified by the courts to proceed and there were already more than 
45 plaintiffs on board. Smith is quoted as saying that there may be as many 
as 400 different homeowners in Eastern Ontario who may be experiencing 
defective foundations from the faulty fly ash concrete mixture.

Since the factual and liability issues are basically the same, the class 
action is essentially on hold until the Court of Appeal rules on the first 
case. But with more than $15 million in damages and millions more in costs 
and interest, the case could eventually wind up in the Supreme Court of 
Canada.

In the meantime, real estate agents and lawyers between Ottawa and 
Hawkesbury are taking extra precautions when listing for sale a house with 
defective concrete. Even though the replacement costs might eventually be 
paid by court order, full disclosure of the problem must be made to any 
potential purchaser.

For owners of new homes in the rest of Ontario, there is a lesson to be 
learned from the Ottawa experience. If a structural problem is not reported 
to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program within the seven-year coverage 
period, the unfortunate homeowner may have to look forward to years of 
expensive and draining litigation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Aaron is a leading Toronto real estate lawyer. Please send your 
inquiries and questions to bob at aaron.ca or call 416-364-9366.


Bob Aaron is a Toronto real estate lawyer. Send questions to Bob Aaron, 10 
King Street East, #1400, Toronto, Ontario M5C 1C3, or by e-mail to bob@ 
aaron.ca , phone 416-364-9366, or fax 416-364-3818.