A quest for tires
The Kingston Whig-Standard - Saturday, February 17, 2007
By Jennifer Pritchett
Local News - Ontario is the only province in Canada without a recycling program for scrap tires.
While there has been a proposal at Queen's Park for nearly two years, provincial politicians have shelved the idea of an Ontario disposal plan indefinitely.
As a result, the approximately 13 million used tires discarded in the province each year have spawned an unregulated, hidden-from-public-view industry that has left a peppering of illegal tire stockpiles across Ontario with potentially serious environmental implications, among them:
- The absence of regulations has created a market that's rife with companies trying to make a fast buck hauling away old rubber without properly disposing of it.
- There are no requirements of any kind to be a scrap tire collector in Ontario.
- The Ministry of the Environment permits the dumping of up to 5,000 tires before it requires a permit.
- Without regulation, the province has no idea how many tires are discarded in any given year and has no means of tracking their disposal.
With Ontario's decision to allow the multinational cement firm Lafarge to burn tires at a plant near Kingston, the demand for scrap tires is expected to increase.
And so, the lack of government monitoring and the increasing demand has left legitimate recyclers in Ontario concerned they will soon have trouble finding enough to keep them in business.
Ron Politewicz, co-owner of Waste Care, a company that hauls away tires from major dealers such as Costco and Kal Tire in Kingston, said it's a public misconception that Ontario has an abundance of available old tires.
"There's a fierce competition for tires, fierce," he said.
The reason for this, he said, is that every year a significant number of discarded tires are disposed of at unknown locations. The tires aren't put on the market to be purchased by recyclers or companies wanting to burn the material.
"We have a voracious appetite for tires and we have trouble filling that appetite," he said. "Everybody wants those tires. I know it's hard to believe, but we're fighting over those tires."
The tires that Politewicz's company collects in the Kingston area are trucked about 90 minutes down the road to the Lafleche landfill in Moose Creek, Ont., where they are used as a protective layer to prevent garbage juice from leaching into the ground and polluting the water table. The shredded tires replace aggregate rock.
In order to operate this business, his company had to invest $1 million for shredding equipment. Then there are the operating costs of running the machinery and the trucking costs of transporting the tires to Moose Creek.
The business uses more than one million old tires each year to meet the need of the landfill.
Politewicz said the lack of regulations in the industry has created an uneven playing field for legitimate collectors/recyclers and fly-by-night operations with no concern for the environment.
One of the major problems, he said, is that it costs more to dispose of tires properly than it does for a hauler to collect the tires and dump them in a farmer's field or an abandoned warehouse.
"Anybody with a pickup truck can go pick up a tire from a dealer, charge him half of what we might and then dump it in a field across the road," he said.
"No one can say much about that because there are no legalities that prevent him from doing that."
Politewicz said there's a smattering of sites across the province with anywhere from 500 to 5,000 tires.
"The big, huge dumps have attracted the attention of the ministry and they're pretty much over in Ontario," he said. "So it's gone from large accumulations in a few areas to millions of little sprinklings all over Ontario."
Jinette Dureau of the Canadian Association of Tire Recycling Agencies said the industry is waiting for the Ontario government to implement a program.
Without one, the government has no idea where the province's tires are going,she said.
"Some are stockpiled somewhere in the province and the government will have to manage [those sites] one day," she said. "In Canada, we have decided that we don't want tires dumped, we don't want stockpiling. We want tires to be managed."
Tire stockpiles are considered fire hazards. When large piles of the old rubber burn, they spew toxins into the air and oil and chemicals into the water.
The 1990 Hagersville fire near Hamilton, which involved 14 million old tires, burned for weeks and forced the evacuation of 1,200 people. The fire led to tougher regulations for the storage and disposal of scrap tires across the country.
Abandoned tires, which collect stagnant rainwater, can also become breeding grounds for mosquitoes, which can transmit West Nile virus.
And with so many uses for old tires, said Dureau, there's no reason why they should be left lying around.
"There are programs across Canada and with them, we have industries that can manage these tires," she said.
In addition to using shredded tires as leachate control material, the old rubber is used to make automobile parts, playground and sports surfaces, as well as rubberized asphalt.
Without a provincewide recycling program, Grey County has taken the matter into its own hands by developing a system to recycle and use all the tires discarded in the municipality.
The county has used its scrap tire supply to build roads with rubberized asphalt. Since the early 1990s, the municipality has paved 150 kilometres of road using scrap tires.
The market for products made from recycled tire rubber continues to grow.
Scrap tires are gaining momentum as an alternate fuel for cement kilns in Canada. There are three plants in Quebec that use old tires for this purpose and the Bath cement plant near Kingston is expected to begin burning tires sometime in 2008. A cement plant in Nova Scotia was recently given the green light to use tires as fuel as well.
Still, Dureau acknowledges that Ontario has a big challenge dealing with its stockpiles because the province generates more tires than any other in the country.
But Ontario, which can learn from the practices of other provinces, has to catch up with the rest of Canada and adopt a scrap tire program, said Dureau, who's based in Montreal.
"We all started one day and now we can help Ontario start a program," she said.
Other provinces, such as Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, have a $3 or $4 levy to cover the cost of disposal when you buy a tire, according to the Canadian Association of Tire Recycling Agencies.
But it was, in part, because of fees such as these that the Liberal government shelved its current proposal for a scrap tire program.
The government didn't feel there was enough public support to pay for a recycling program with fees collected from consumers.
But even without a regulated program in place, Ontario consumers are already paying to dispose of their tires.
For every person who buys a new tire, he/she pays anywhere from $3 for a passenger vehicle tire to $100 for a loader tire from a tractor to dispose of the old one.
Then dealers, such as Costco and Canadian Tire, pay a company such as Waste Care to haul the tires away. But depending on the company, it's anyone's guess as to where the tires end up because they aren't tracked or regulated in any way. Many end up in stockpiles.
It's ironic that such a system would be allowed to flourish in Ontario because it was the first province in the country to institute a tire recycling program back in 1989. The government, under then premier David Petersen, imposed a $5 tax per tire on all new automobile tires to finance it.
The whole system, however, backfired. While the public believed that all the revenue from the tire tax was going into a fund for scrap tire recycling, it was, in fact, going into general revenues of the government.
In 1993, then-premier Bob Rae bowed to public and political pressure and scrapped the tire tax, leaving Ontario the only province in Canada without a program.
Since then, efforts have been made to start a program without success.
Ralph Warner of the Rubber Association of Canada said representatives from the rubber and tire manufacturing industry worked on the most recent plan, called Ontario Tire Stewardship. It was presented to government in 2004.
Those in the rubber business are eagerly waiting for the government to give them the go-ahead to implement the program.
John Steele, spokesman for the Ministry of the Environment, said the proposed program wasn't approved because "there were constitutional issues with it" relating to taxation.
He said the government, for now, has decided to focus its efforts on diverting electronic and other types of household waste from landfill sites.
"The ministry has put tires on hold until it looks at the options," said Steele. "Scrap tires aren't a hazardous waste. They are considered domestic waste and aren't tracked."
Steele said the province knows that about 40 per cent of all tires discarded in Ontario are recycled. He acknowledged that the government doesn't really know what happens to the other 60 per cent.
"We know they'll either be stockpiled or go to the U.S.," he said.
Waste Diversion Ontario, an arm's- length government agency created under the Waste Diversion Act, said in 2003 that scrap tires shouldn't go to landfills.
At that time, the province directed the agency to develop a waste diversion plan for used tires.
Four years later, Ontario still doesn't have any immediate plans to start a program.
Though tire disposal has been deemed an Ontario problem, perhaps its largest stockpile exists in the northern part of the province on native land that isn't governed by provincial environment laws.
Environmentalists, native groups and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada are trying to figure out a clean-up plan for a stockpile of nearly one million tires on Manitoulin Island. Situated on the Zhiibaahaasing First Nation reserve, Cockburn Island Recycling piled the tires but didn't recycle them.
The Manitoulin stockpile wouldn't be allowed to exist if it weren't located on native-owned land because it would be subject to the province's environment laws that kick in for stockpiles larger than 5,000 tires.
While there may be a number of companies interested in using the tires at the Manitoulin site, not one has jumped at the chance because the location is so remote and transportation costs are high to remove them.
Lafarge Canada would love to get its hands on the tires, but the plant manager at the Bath facility has said the firm hasn't identified any specific source yet for the tires it will need to feed its cement kiln.
The certificate of approval Lafarge has from the Ministry of the Environment allows the company to accept tires from Ontario, Quebec and New York state.
Bath plant manager Michael Klenk said Lafarge will attempt to use stockpiled tires in Ontario first before going outside the province for the material.
"Depending on the availability and distribution, we'll look at other potential areas in the future," he said.
Klenk said a company called Systech, a subsidiary of Lafarge, will be handling the acquisition of tires for the plant.
"No deals have been made as yet," he said.
When its operation is in full swing, Lafarge will require up to 9,250 tires a day to keep its kiln running.
Hearing about the huge numbers of scrap tires Lafarge will need makes Kingston resident Taras Kowalczyszyn a little nervous. The consultant sells recycled rubber underlay that's been used in a number of Kingston buildings to decrease noise and vibration.
"The biggest problem on the horizon is the shortage of tires," he said.
The underlay has been used at the Pan Chancho restaurant and bakery on Princess Street and the old British Whig building on King Street, in which about 35,000 square feet of the recycled product was used.
The material is being used to cut down on foot-fall noise in an apartment building being constructed at the corner of Queen and Bagot streets.
The underlay is manufactured by an American company called Dodge-Regupol Inc. which claims to be North America's largest manufacturer of recycled rubber products.
Last year, the company used 80 million pounds of recycled rubber to make their underlay.
Kowalczyszyn said the prospect of companies such as Lafarge burning scrap tires as fuel will eventually lead to a shortage of tires that will increase the cost of products made by tire recyclers or put them out of business altogether.
"What has become a simple solution to build quiet buildings will simply be blown out the stack at Lafarge," he said.
But if there was the political will to create a program to collect tires across the province, he doesn't believe there would be a problem using all the tires that are discarded and keep the recyclers supplied at the same time.
"It's kind of a misnomer that there's too many tires and Lafarge is jumping into the mix and saving the day," he said. "In fact, that's not the case."
|
Opponents win hearing on Lafarge
Provincial tribunal criticizes plan to burn tires, waste at Bath plant
The Kingston Whig-Standard - Thursday, April 5, 2007
By Jennifer Pritchett
Whig-Standard Staff Writer
Local News - Opponents of the province's plan to allow Lafarge to burn tires at its Bath cement plant will be able to appeal the government's controversial decision at an independent hearing.
Late yesterday, Ontario's Environmental Review Tribunal, an impartial agency, released a critical report on the government's decision and ordered a hearing to determine whether the plan should be stopped.
"The Tribunal finds that the kinds of contaminants to be emitted from the Lafarge kiln from the use of both traditional and waste-derived fuels are potentially hazardous to the environment and human health," states the 35-page report.
Opponents of the burning plan, among them several high-profile environmental groups, citizens groups and local residents, are thrilled with the decision because it will give them a long-awaited opportunity to have their case heard.
Rick Lindgren, a lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which represents Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and Tragically Hip lead singer Gord Downie, said it's promising to see an independent agency come out on side with those who've had concerns about the project since the proposal was first made public nearly four years ago.
"It amounts to a pretty pointed rejection of the position of the ministry [of the environment] and of Lafarge, both of whom had been telling the tribunal that there's nothing to worry about here - there is nothing to be concerned here about environmental or public health," Lindgren said.
"The tribunal weighed those considerations against the submissions and the evidence tendered by my clients and other parties and basically sided with us. There is reason to be concerned."
Lindgren also sees the tribunal's decision as a significant legal victory that will likely help others who want to oppose similar decisions.
The Canadian Environmental Law Association was among roughly 20 individuals and groups who, in early January, requested the right to appeal the plan to burn tires and municipal waste at the facility just west of Kingston.
They were outraged when, just a couple of days before Christmas, the ministry of the environment said it would allow Lafarge to burn tires at the waterfront plant, while at the same time implementing a ban on burning tires in the rest of the province.
Following yesterday's decision by the tribunal, Lafarge remains committed to its project. Company officials view the hearing as an opportunity to demonstrate the merits of burning waste-derived fuel at its cement kiln.
"Honestly, we're disappointed, but we're absolutely convinced of the merits of our project," said Lafarge spokesman Rob Cumming.
He said company officials will be reviewing the tribunal's decision over the next few days to determine the next steps.
"We've learned to be patient through this process," he said. "It's a long process with lots of opportunity for public involvement and we recognize that's where we're at and we're very pleased to see the public has an opportunity to exercise its rights to appeal and they've done so."
A hearing by the Environmental Review Tribunal will give both opponents and Lafarge an opportunity to present their side before an independent panel of experts, after which the tribunal will render a decision.
In Ontario, residents have to request the right to appeal environmental decisions. Yesterday's decision gives opponents of the Lafarge tire-burning plan the right to do that.
Mark Mattson of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper said there is a high test for residents to pass in order to prove they should have the right to appeal these decisions.
"Now we can actually appeal them because before we were appealing to be able to appeal them," he said.
In addition to Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and Gord Downie, other applicants given an opportunity to present their case at a hearing include Susan Quinton on behalf of citizen's group Clean Air Bath; Martin Hauschild and William Kelley Hineman of the Loyalist Environmental Coalition; and other members of the Tragically Hip: Gordon Sinclair, Rob Baker, Paul Langlois and John Fay.
Some local citizens who had requested a leave to appeal weren't given standing, but may still be permitted to participate in a hearing.
The groups that were given standing yesterday have 15 days to file their notice of appeal in preparation of the hearing.
Mattson expects the hearing to be sometime this summer or early fall.
The ability of citizens to appeal environmental decisions has existed for more than a decade. The track record of the tribunal suggests that about two-thirds of applicants who request a hearing are rejected, said Lindgren.
Yesterday's decision found that it was unreasonable for the ministry of the environment to issue the approvals that gave Lafarge permission to burn the waste. Secondly, the tribunal found that the approvals could result in significant harm.
Leona Dombrowsky, MPP for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, said she doesn't have an opinion about whether Lafarge should be granted approval to burn tires as fuel. Instead, she said, that decision should be left to experts who understand the science and can make an informed decision about whether it's safe.
"I'm not prejudging the outcome of this. I'm not a scientist," she said. "I think the people of the community have raised some valid issues."
She said she's prepared to accept whatever decision comes out of an independent hearing.
The decision, released only to the parties yesterday, is expected to be posted on the Environmental Review Tribunal website today at www.ert.gov.on.ca
|
Bath victory throws cold water on McGuinty's incineration agenda
The Ontario Legislature - Thursday, April 5, 2007
From: Peter Tabuns, MPP Toronto-Danforth
NDP Environment Critic
Queen's Park - The Environmental Review Tribunal decision that government
approvals to burn tires in Bath On can be appealed throws cold water on Dalton McGuinty's incineration agenda, says Peter Tabuns, NDP Environment Critic.
"Yesterday, two weeks after the McGuinty cabinet changed the rules to
fast track incinerators across Ontario by exempting them from the
environmental assessment process, the Environmental Review Tribunal
ruled in favour of citizens wanting to appeal the approvals given to
Lafarge to burn tires. This decision signals that incineration should
not be exempt from scrutiny," said Tabuns.
The tribunal found that this incinerator, which did not undergo an
environmental assessment, is potentially hazardous to public health and
the environment. "The community and environmental experts had been
telling McGuinty's Environment Minister Laurel Broten this for months
prior to the approvals being issued.".
"This is both a key victory for the residents of Bath, who have been
tireless in fighting against this dangerous proposal, and for
environmental protection. Dalton McGuinty has been spinning incineration
as safe, despite the evidence that says otherwise," said Tabuns.
"Ontarians do not want more cancer causing toxins to be emitted into
their air and water through incineration. They deserve a plan that
reduces our waste, not one that makes it available to burn for profit,"
said Tabuns.
Media Inquiries: Jasmyn Singh, 416-325-3250
Ontario Hansard - April 5, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mr. Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth): My question is for the Minister of
the Environment. Minister, yesterday the Environmental Review Tribunal
threw cold water on your incineration agenda. It has given concerned
citizens the green light to appeal the approvals given under your watch
to Lafarge Canada to burn tires in Bath. The tribunal found that this
incinerator is potentially hazardous to public health and the
environment, and that's exactly-exactly-what community and environmental
experts have been telling you for months.
The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): We need the member for Oxford and
the Attorney General to sit down.
Mr. Tabuns: Why did you let the interests of a multinational company
trump protecting Ontario families and the environment?
Hon. Laurel C. Broten (Minister of the Environment): As my friend knows
well, the matter is now obviously before the Environmental Review
Tribunal, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that
specific matter. My number one priority as Minister of the Environment is to ensure the
health and safety of Ontarians. We are guided by a public discourse and guided by good science. The hearing before the Environmental Review Tribunal will provide another opportunity for the community to come together to bring that good science forward, and I look forward to the matter being before the ERT so that we can all move forward, being guided by the best science that's available.
Mr. Tabuns: The minister talks about protecting public safety, but she
did not require Lafarge Canada's tire incinerator to undergo an
environmental assessment. She forced the citizens to put out money and
time to protect themselves. Two weeks ago, you changed the rules so you
could fast-track incineration in this province so people could get
around the environmental assessment process. The decision that was
handed down by the Environmental Review Tribunal yesterday signals that
these projects must be scrutinized, that those claims that they're safe
are spin and not substance. Minister, when can Ontarians count on you to actually start protecting
the air they breathe from incineration?
Hon. Ms. Broten: I know my friend wants to play politics with many
diverse issues, put them in a pot. I know that you have an absolute
unwillingness to examine any type of new technology. That's why the
rules have been put forth: 14 mandatory steps, many opportunities for
public consultation. Those are the issues that we talked about last June
when we said we would help get to a faster yes or a faster no and make
sure that the environmental assessment process did protect Ontarians.
The matter now before the Environmental Review Tribunal is with respect
to a certificate of approval, and I know that you know that those
matters are very distinct. But in all of those issues, the guiding
principle is to be guided by good science, to have public consultation,
to meet with the community-which I have done in all of these
instances-and to make sure that together as a jurisdiction we progress
into the 21st century making sure that every citizen in Ontario is
protected, and that's what I'm committed to doing.
http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardETITLE/38-2/L153-69.html
|
A victory for Bath residents
The Kingston Whig-Standard - Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Letters to the Editor - Re: "Opponents win hearing on Lafarge" (April 5).
In deciding that the approvals given to Lafarge Canada by the provincial government to burn tires in Bath can be appealed, the province's Environmental Review Tribunal last week threw some much-needed cold water on Premier Dalton McGuinty's incineration agenda.
The tribunal's decision that this incineration plan, which did not undergo an environmental assessment, is potentially hazardous to public health and the environment came two weeks after Liberal Environment Minister Laurel Broten changed the rules so incinerators across Ontario could bypass the environmental assessment process.
The Environmental Review Tribunal's decision signals that incineration needs to be scrutinized, not fast-tracked.
Bath residents who have been fighting against the Lafarge incineration plan have scored a major victory that will help other Ontario communities that are being put at risk by the Liberal government's decision to abandon diversion and let waste be burned for profit, despite the evidence that incineration is not a sustainable and safe option.
Peter Tabuns, MPP
NDP Environment Critic
Queen's Park
Toronto
|
Opponents get chance to clear the air
Leave to appeal Lafarge burning decision granted by Environmental Review Tribunal
The Napanee Guide - Friday, April 13, 2007
By Dale Morrisey
Local News - Opponents of lafarge's proposal to burn tires and other waste materials as alternate fuel sources at its Bath cement plant won a round in their ongoing fight Wednesday. Ontario's Environmental Review Tribunal awarded an independent hearing on the provincial goverment's controversial decision to allow lafarge to move ahead with its tire burning plan.
"The Tribunal finds that the kinds of contaminants to be emitted from the lafarge kiln from the use of both traditional and waste-derived fuels are potentially hazardous to the environment and human health," states the report.
The tribunal's 34-page ruling also stated it was "unreasonable" for the ministry of the environment to give lafarge permission to burn waste at its kiln. It also ruled that the approvals granted by the ministry could result in "significant harm".
One of the environmental groups which is in a pitched battle with lafarge and the province over the tire burning plan is Clean Air Bath. Susan Quinton is a part of the group and said she was relieved when she got the news, "We were ecstatic. We were thrilled. I'm still in the process of reviewing the document," said Quinton.
"We have legitimate concerns and it is nice that they're being recognized and they will be addressed in an open and transparent way," she added.
Rob Cumming spokesperson for lafarge also expected Wednesday's decision. Cumming said the the company remains committed to the project. He said lafarge sees the hearing as a chance to show concerned citizens the merits of their waste burning plan.
"We were disappointed," he said. "But, we're absolutely convinced of the merits of our project," said Cumming.
Cumming said lafarge has been diligent in their approach to the application process.
"What may be getting missed here is that lafarge, for the past four years, has been following the exact steps of the process. This is the next step in the process. We've learned to be patient and we want the public to have the chance to ask questions. We've done that for years and we'll do that for the next year," he said.
Cumming said they were still reviewing the tribunal's decision, but he was encouraged by some of the language he had come across so far.
"We do know that the decision has mostly focused on regulatory regime. We need to understand what some of that means," he said.
"In terms of the project itself, the tribunal member seems to indicate he needs more information. One of the things that gets missed is any time you use any fuel there's always potential for emissions and that doesn't necessarily mean it's harmful and that is often a misunderstanding. He hasn't ruled on that yet," added Cumming.
A handful of groups have been granted the opportunity to argue their stance in front of the tribunal, including Lake Ontario Waterkeepers and Loyalist Environmental Coalition. Quinton is also listed as a representative of Clean Air Bath.
"We've all worked really hard to get to this point and at this point we're extremely grateful to the people in this area for all the hard work that has been involved so far," Quinton said.
According to the the tribunal's website, groups that were given standing in Wednesday's ruling have 15 days to file their notice of appeal in preparation for the impending hearing. Some groups and individuals who had applied for the chance to appeal the lafarge decision weren't given standing by the tribunal but might still be able to participate in the hearing.
Expected to take place late summer or early fall, the hearing will consist of an independent panel of experts. Both sides of the issue will be able to present their argument and the panel will make a decision from there.
"It's been a long time coming. We look forward to the next stage," noted Quinton.
To download the entire decision, visit www.ert.gov.on.ca/
|
Gearing up to appeal the Lafarge Alternative Fuels Project
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper - Tuesday, April 10, 2007
By Waterkeeper.ca Weekly
Last week, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper along with Clean Air Bath, Loyalist Environmental Coalition and The Tragically Hip won the opportunity to appeal the Ministry of the Environment's approvals for the Lafarge Alternative Fuels Project.
A few years ago, Lafarge began exploring the possibility of burning tires, plastics, bone meal and other waste materials in its cement kiln in Bath, Ontario. From the very beginning, environmentalists and residents raised concerns about the impacts the "alternative fuels" project might have on local air and water quality. Tire-burning, in particular, attracted people's attention because it has led to increases in emissions of dioxins, PAHs, and metals in other communities. Non-governmental organizations, private citizens, local governments, and others documented their concerns in a number of submissions to the Ministry of the Environment.
One year ago, Lafarge asked the Ministry of the Environment for certificates of approval for air emissions and waste disposal so that it could launch the project. Waterkeeper and dozens of others used the Environmental Bill of Rights process to inform the Ministry of possible environmental impacts, ask questions about the process, and make recommendations to ensure clean air and water and fair decision-making.
In early summer 2006, our worries about pollution in the Bath Creek and Lake Ontario grew. Lafarge asked for a revised waste disposal permit last summer - this time for its thirty-year old cement kiln dust landfill. Lafarge dumps an average of 28,521 tonnes of cement kiln dust into its landfill each year, roughly the equivalent of the domestic waste created by 94,000 people. CKD is the dust captured from the cement kiln's exhaust gas by the air pollution control system. It is a corrosive, toxic substance.
Leachate from the landfill is released untreated into the Bath Creek, which runs from the landfill through the town of Bath and into Lake Ontario. Lafarge is allowed to continuously discharge into the creek as long as monthly monitoring does not indicate greater than 50% mortality to fish. In 2001, Lafarge reported two of these mortality tests where all organisms died at 100% concentration. Runoff from the landfill includes contaminants such as Silver, Aluminium, Cadmium, Iron, Nickel, Strontium, Zinc, Phosphate, and Phenols.
After carefully documenting our concerns about air pollution, water pollution, and the potential cumulative effects of so many so-called "alternative fuels," we were very surprised when the Ministry of the Environment approved the Lafarge Alternative Fuels project on the eve of the winter holiday last December. Every group and every citizen who had commented during the EBR process scurried to find legal representation to ask the Environmental Review Tribunal for permission to appeal the approvals within our alloted 15 days.
To win an opportunity to appeal the approvals, each party had to show that no reasonable person could have made same decision as the Ministry of the Environment, and that the Ministry's decision could result in significant harm to the environment. In its April 5, 2007 decision, the Tribunal declared that our groups had met this test.
The Tribunal's decision opens the door for Clean Air Bath, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and Gord Downie, Loyalist Environmental Coalition, and The Tragically Hip. The groups will be represented by Rick Lindgren of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Rob Wright of Sierra Legal Defence Fund, and noted environmental lawyer Joseph Castrilli. We will file our notice of appeal soon, and then we will finally have an opportunity to argue the issue in front of an independent tribunal.
With two years of research and comment under our belts and with the appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal just beginning, this is a long process. It's also a milestone for Waterkeeper, the other participants, and everyone who has commented on any permit in recent years. We have a lot to contribute to the decision-making process ... and we are relieved that someone finally noticed.
More information:
|
Opponents stoked for Lafarge fight;
"We are in the driver's seat," meeting hears
The Kingston Whig-Standard - Monday, April 23, 2007
By
Brock Harrison - Whig-Standard Staff Writer
 Local News - The legal team leading the fight to have Lafarge's tire-burning permits revoked painted a rosy picture yesterday of how an upcoming appeal hearing into the matter will turn out.
"I think we'll win," said an exuberant Rick Lindgren, a lawyer with the Canadian Environmental Law Association, at a rally-type meeting in Bath yesterday in anticipation of an appeal hearing with Ontario's Environmental Review Tribunal.
Earlier this month, the independent tribunal granted Lafarge opponents an appeal hearing to explore if Ontario's Environment Ministry erred in issuing Lafarge permits to burn tires at its Bath plant last December.
The company has wanted to burn tires to fuel the Bath plant, just west of Kingston, for four years.
A fierce grassroots campaign now being led by a team of high-profile environmental lawyers and local residents has fought the proposal tooth and nail every step of the way.
They allege the burning of tires in Lafarge's 34-year-old kiln represents a major public health concern for nearby residents.
They also say the Ministry of the Environment overlooked its own protocols and ignored landowners' rights in issuing the permits.
In its ruling, the tribunal said the emissions that would come from Lafarge's tire-burning kiln "are potentially hazardous to the environment and human health" and said "no reasonable person" would have issued a permit.
"What more do we have to prove?" Lindgren said at the meeting, attended by about 70 people at Bath Public School. "We are in the driver's seat."
Yesterday's meeting was called to rally Lafarge opponents for the upcoming appeal process, which lawyers say could take between six months and a year.
The tribunal is a quasi-judicial body appointed by cabinet that will either uphold the permits Lafarge obtained or revoke them.
Susan Quinton, a spokesperson for the citizens group Clean Air Bath, said she would be assembling a fundraising committee in order to secure expert witnesses for the appeal. Money raised would cover travel expenses and per diems for witnesses.
"I'm confident we can do this," she said. "This community is as strong, committed and united as any you'll encounter."
Quinton could not say how much money the committee would seek to raise.
Lawyer Rob Wright of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, one of the environmental groups that have joined the Lafarge fight, says the appeal has the grassroots enthusiasm and the legal and scientific clout to succeed.
"The tribunal would have had a hard time saying no even if it wanted to," Wright said in reference to the tribunal's decision to grant an appeal.
Mark Mattson of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper said even scoring an appeal is a "huge victory for environmental justice."
Usually, advancing a protest to the appeal stage is contingent on how much money and political connections the protest group commands, Mattson said.
"That could have happened in Bath, but it didn't," he said.
If the tribunal upholds the permits, Lafarge opponents will ask to have the conditions on obtaining such permits tightened.
Environmental lawyer Joe Castrilli said the 85 "boiler plate" conditions attached to the Lafarge permits were token measures.
"They simply don't go far enough," he said.
Although Lafarge has obtained the permits, it won't be allowed to start burning tires in its kiln until the appeal process is dealt with.
Lafarge officials say tire-burning will actually reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions.
Environment Ministry officials issued the Lafarge permits the same day they implemented a ban on burning tires in the rest of the province.
Lindgren reassured the meeting that the tribunal is a politically independent body that is not beholden to government.
"I've seen them come down very hard on the Environment Ministry before," he said.
Martin Hauschild, president of another citizens group called the Loyalist Environmental Coalition, commended his colleagues for the fight they've put up so far.
"When we started this, it was pretty lonely. A lot of people asked us how we thought we'd ever get anything done," he said. "We've just kept pounding away."
He also said the case will set the benchmark for environmental rights in the province.
"What we're doing is creating a precedent," he said. "It's not just about what is wrong with one site."
|
Environment neglected, Ontario told; Watchdog warns of 'catastrophic events' unless funding restored
The Kingston Whig-Standard - Wednesday, April 25, 2007
By Chinta Puxley / CP
Local News - Funding cuts spanning 15 years have left Ontario vulnerable to a catastrophe similar to the Walkerton tainted water tragedy that claimed seven lives and sickened thousands in 2000, the province's environmental watchdog warned yesterday.
The provincial ministries responsible for the environment "have been allowed to atrophy and deteriorate" to the point where there isn't enough qualified staff to regularly inspect facilities that spew pollutants into the air and water, said Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller.
In a report released yesterday, Miller said both the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Natural Resources are failing to ensure even the most "basic public service": that raw or inadequately treated sewage doesn't pollute Ontario's water.
The Environment Ministry also can't keep up with the applications for permits that regulate what companies can discharge into the environment, while other companies are operating with ancient permits that don't hold them to current standards, Miller said.
"Our present course puts our ecosystems, our biodiversity, our health and parts of our economy at serious risk of deterioration and catastrophic events," Miller said after releasing his report entitled "Doing Less with Less."
While opposition parties said the report shows the province hasn't learned anything from the Walkerton tragedy - which saw seven people die and thousands fall ill when the southern Ontario town's water supply became contaminated with E. coli in May 2000 - Miller said the environment ministry has, in fact, bolstered drinking water protection.
Since the ministry's overall funding has been cut, Miller said those improvements seem to have come at the expense of other programs.
"Where did that money come from?" Miller said. "That is where the real problems exist. They've actually constrained the rest of the duties and activities of the Ministry of the Environment even more." While both ministries have seen their responsibilities increase since the early 1990s, Miller said their budgets have been slashed under New Democrat, Conservative and Liberal governments.
Funding in Ontario now falls well behind that of provinces like British Columbia and Alberta, he noted. The Ontario environment ministry now spends $22 per capita, down from $39 in 1992 while spending at the natural resources ministry has fallen from $72 per capita in 1992 to $49 last year.
It's time the province saw the connection between people's health and environmental inspection, Miller added.
"Our emergency wards clog with children having asthma attacks," said Miller, adding the government must rebuild both ministries from the ground up and boost their budgets.
"But the solution is not more emergency wards - it includes giving the Ministry of the Environment the resources to make the air cleaner."
Environment Minister Laurel Broten said her ministry has suffered serious cuts over the last 15 years and is taking steps to rebuild. For example, she said the ministry is putting $1.5 million into speeding up permits and addressing the backlog highlighted by Miller.
|
lafarge controversy has wider import
The Kingston Whig-Standard - Saturday, April 28, 2007
By Daniel ffolliott
Bath
Letter to the Editor - Lawyers for groups opposed to tire- and waste-burning at lafarge's Bath cement plant say this struggle is precedent-setting. They also say that the ruling from the Environmental Review Tribunal when it hears the appeal of the province's decision to allow the plant to incinerate tires and waste could even have Canada-wide implications.
Meanwhile, Ontario environmental commissioner Gord Miller has warned that the Environment Ministry has been so badly starved of funds over the past 15 years that, with its shortage of qualified staff, it is incapable of doing an acceptable job anyway. No doubt further light will be cast on the weak state of environmental protection in Ontario at the Environmental Review Tribunal’s quasi-judicial hearing. Hopefully this will sufficiently embarrass our elected representatives that they will allocate more tax dollars where they are desperately needed.
Informed Whig readers will realize that the controversy surrounding tire-burning by lafarge has much broader implications than just burning tires at the cement plant, and much more to do with our insisting on government accountability for managing our air, land and water everywhere.
|
Lafarge may scrap tire plan
Decision hinges on appeal battle
The Kingston Whig-Standard - Saturday, July 12, 2008
By Jennifer Pritchett
Whig-Standard Environment Reporter
Local News - In a bombshell announcement late yesterday, Lafarge Canada revealed it will scrap its plan to burn tires at the Bath cement plant before allowing the matter to go to an independent hearing.
The cement giant released a statement indicating it will continue its attempts to stop the hearing through the Ontario Court of Appeal. But if it loses that legal battle, it will effectively kill the project and withdraw its permit application from the Ministry of the Environment to burn the waste.
"There should be no scenarios under which an appeal hearing will proceed and there will be no need for the parties to continue expending time and resources on the appeal hearing," it stated.
David Crocker, Lafarge's lawyer, said that though the company stands by the safety of the tire-burning technology, it does not want a hearing into the tire-burning plan to go ahead.
"Although we believe that alternative fuels are bona fide and a reasonable approach, are environmentally responsible and socially responsible and will reduce the facility's reliance on fossil fuels ... the hearing will be lengthy and expensive," he said in an interview.
The independent hearing is scheduled to start in September.
But Crocker said he's hopeful the proceedings will be postponed pending the outcome of Lafarge's appeal. He anticipates the appeal process to take upwards of eight or nine months.
"If we're not successful before the Court of Appeal, there won't be any hearing," he said.
Lafarge has been working for roughly five years to get provincial permission to burn tires, bone meal and other waste at its Bath cement kiln. For much of that time, many citizens and environmental groups have opposed the plan because they want more government and scientific scrutiny of the project.
It's been a long process for both Lafarge and for those who have fought to get more public input into the controversial plan.
Earlier this month, Lafarge announced it would go to the Ontario Court of Appeal in an effort to reverse a June 18 decision by Ontario's Divisional Court.
That ruling permitted a citizen-led appeal of Lafarge's tire-burning proposal to go ahead.
Yesterday, Crocker sent a letter to all the parties involved in the hearing, as well as to the Environmental Review Tribunal, an independent body that would oversee the proceedings, outlining its decision to stop the project if it loses in court.
Lawyers involved in the hearing are scheduled for a teleconference to discuss matters surrounding the hearing on Monday.
Mark Mattson, a lawyer with the environmental group Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, one of the parties that had asked for the hearing, hadn't received the letter from Lafarge when theWhig- Standardcontacted him.
He was surprised to learn of Lafarge's recent news.
"We've been so focused on our work for the last few months," he said. "We're getting ready for the hearing in September so it's been a lot of work ... it will change how we get up on Monday to proceed with the case, I suppose."
Mattson said that while it will be disappointing if there is no hearing, it's good news that the project may be taken off the table.
"From a community point of view, I suppose it's a good thing I suppose that if they can't prove that it's safe, they're going to cancel the project," he said. "But it would have been good to get more evidence on these issues to figure out how to put in place something better than what they have in place currently."
|
Opponents want to see Lafarge pay
Groups spent thousands to prepare for hearing into tire-burning plan
The Kingston Whig-Standard - Tuesday, July 15, 2008
By Jennifer Pritchett
Whig-Standard Environment Reporter
Local News - CITIZENS AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS SAY THEY'LL GO after Lafarge Canada for hundreds of thousands of dollars they've spent preparing for a hearing the cement giant pulled the plug on late last week.
Yesterday, lawyers for the appellants told the Environmental Review Tribunal, an independent body, that they planned to initiate proceedings against Lafarge to get back the money local residents and environmental groups have spent on legal and expert costs.
The news follows Lafarge's surprising announcement late Friday afternoon that it would scrap its plan to burn tires if the firm loses its legal battle at the Ontario Court of Appeal to stop an independent hearing from scrutinizing its controversial alternative fuels proposal.
The Environment Review Tribunal hearing had been scheduled to begin at the end of September and was to last about two months.
Rick Lindgren, a lawyer for the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which represents Tragically Hip singer Gord Downie and Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, said the appellants all agree Lafarge should foot the bill for the work that has gone into the hearing process over roughly the past 16 months.
"We've retained a number of experts some time ago in order to review all the material, some of them visited the plant, some of them are conducting research and others are drafting their reports that are due mere weeks from now," he said.
"We think some cost consequences should follow the 11th-hour decision by Lafarge to pull the plug on the hearing."
While no one has tallied up the invoices and total expenses for the case so far, Lindgren said expert costs alone to this point have run in excess of $100,000.
Local citizens, environmental groups such as Loyalist Environmental Coalition and the community at large, through public fundraising events, have so far paid the costs associated with the hearing.
"It leaves these public interest groups and public interest representatives out of pocket for a lot of money that they spent in good faith getting ready for a hearing," said Lindgren.
"So, as a matter of fairness and for other reasons, there should be an expectation that Lafarge will reimburse the appellants for those costs."
Even though the appellants in the case will be pleased if the tire-burning plan doesn't happen, Lindgren said, they shouldn't have to pay the costs for a hearing that Lafarge made sure would never happen.
Last week, the appellants -including Loyalist Environmental Coalition, five landowners represented by Joe Castrilli, as well as Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and Downie -also filed cost applications with Ontario's Divisional Court to persuade the court to reimburse the appellants for costs associated with Lafarge's unsuccessful bid to stop the hearing through a judicial review.
"There was $75,000 in legal costs just for that," said Lindgren.
In a letter from Lafarge late Friday, the appellants learned about the company's latest plans to withdraw its application to burn tires and other waste from the Ministry of the Environment if it's unsuccessful in overturning the Divisional Court's decision to uphold the independent hearing.
Citizens and environmental organizations fought for the hearing in 2007 because they felt there should be more independent analysis of the science and technology behind Lafarge's plan to burn tires in its Bath cement kiln.
Lindgren said Lafarge's move to quash the hearing confirms long-held beliefs amongst the appellants that the company's plan to burn the waste would never have withstood the scrutiny of an independent hearing.
"Lafarge knew, or ought to have known, that the approvals [from the Ministry of the Environment] would not have survived the rigorous scrutiny of a public hearing," he said. "I think that goes a long way to explaining what transpired last week."
David Crocker, Lafarge's lawyer, disagreed.
He told the Whig-Standard Friday that the company stands by the safety of the tire-burning technology, but it does not want a hearing into the tire-burning plan to proceed.
"Although we believe that alternative fuels are bona fide and a reasonable approach, are environmentally responsible and socially responsible and will reduce the facility's reliance on fossil fuels ... the hearing will be lengthy and expensive," he said in an interview.
|
Tire burning isn't safe
The Kingston Whig-Standard - Friday, August 8, 2008
By Hugh Jenney Secretary/Treasurer
Loyalist Environmental Coalition
Stella
Letter to the Editor - Lafarge filled our heads with half-truths and unscientific claims, saying it could burn tires at its Bath cement plant safely. Then, just as we were about to prove that was not true, the company bailed out of the Environmental Review Tribunal's hearing.
We are left with no changes to today's rules and regulations.
The ministry is supposed to be protecting the people of Bath, Amherstview, Amherst Island and Kingston from Lafarge's pollution. What is it doing, then, by defending Lafarge with its lawyers at our expense? What is democratic about that?
|
|
