Interesting instruments on the Registry: Waste Pelletization
Contents |
Waste Pelletization - approval for a new and controversial plant
Decisions on many thousands of instruments are posted on the Registry each year. The ECO usually selects one or more instruments from this large group for a detailed review, and this year we selected an approval for a waste pelletization plant.
In May 2005, Dongara Pellet Factory Inc. (referred to, hereafter, as Dongara or “the proponent”) applied to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) for the construction and operation of a 3.5 hectare enclosed waste processing facility that included a pelletization plant and a Blue Box materials sorting and transfer facility. The proponent requested that MOE grant a Certificate of Approval (C of A) under s.27 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) allowing for the construction and operation of the facility. The plant, situated in the City of Vaughan, would be used for the processing of 548-800 tonnes of residential waste per day to make EnerPax alternate fuel pellets.
Dongara states that its facility aims to reduce the volume and weight of municipal waste presently being disposed in landfills. Recyclables and hazardous materials are separated from other wastes in the pellet production process and transferred to the appropriate facilities. Dongara contends that the pellet contains lower amounts of harmful compounds and is a cleaner alternate fuel that can replace coal or coke.
In August 2005, Dongara also applied for a C of A under s.9 of the EPA for emissions associated with the building housing the waste pelletizing process, natural gas-fired heating equipment and an emergency diesel generator.
Both Cs of A were issued on August 29, 2006, and included conditions to address fugitive odours, truck traffic and other nuisances.
Public participation in application & EBR process
Both proposals were posted on the Environmental Registry for a 30-day comment period (Registry #IA05E0806 and #IA05E1272). The proponent, in support of its proposal, provided a two-page description in the proposal notice of the pelletization operation, the safeguards in place and the environmental benefits that could be attained.
Dongara conducted a public consultation meeting at a conference centre in Woodbridge on the Class II Instrument proposal. As a result, the facility’s neighbours filed five written comments in May 2005. An additional comment was sent by the lawyers for a cemetery located opposite the Dongara site in June 2005, in response to the registry posting; it outlined preliminary concerns and requested additional information and time to fully comment on the proposal.
The commenters expressed concerns over foul odours, noise, visual impact, the effect on surrounding property values and business ventures, increased truck traffic and the lack of information on the projects and its impacts. Two commenters withdrew their objections after meeting with the proponent, reviewing the plant’s trucking plans and receiving assurances that composting would not occur on-site.
In September 2005, the lawyers for the cemetery submitted detailed comments relating to both proposals. The commenters noted its cemetery is expected to be “a place of peace and tranquility, free from objectionable nuisances,” and that potential nuisance odours would detrimentally impact its cemetery and mausoleum. The comments suggested that the Cs of A include conditions requiring the maintenance of negative pressure between the interior and exterior of the building, as well as safeguards to minimize the potential for fugitive odours or loss of negative pressure. They also suggested that the facility only serve areas with source-separated organics programs.
In its decision notices, MOE stated that the concerns raised by the commenters were consistent with concerns of the ministry and, as a result, terms and conditions were added to the Cs of A. The concerns were addressed by ensuring that: the facilities would be kept under negative pressure with the exhaust passing through a biofilter before it is released; wastes would be stored indoors; composting would not occur at the facility; and trucks would be restricted to certain hours of operation. MOE also included odour monitoring and complaints response procedures in the Cs of A (whereby nuisances can be reported and the proponent is required to respond).
Concerns raised over use of Enerpax pellets
Some environmental groups have raised concerns over the use of EnerPax pellets as an alternate fuel source. In November 2006, MOE posted a proposal notice for a regulation that will exempt all users of EnerPax from the mandatory hearing requirements under s.30 of the EPA (Registry #RA06E0016). This was prompted by Arbour Power, in consultation with the Town of Ajax, proposing to construct and operate a gasification facility that would use EnerPax waste pellets. Dongara and Arbour Power requested that the facility be exempted from the s.30 mandatory hearing requirements under the EPA. Dongara submitted that the s.32 discretionary hearing provision permits a site-specific assessment to determine if a hearing is required. Arbour Power also requested that its proposed facility be exempted from preparing an individual environmental assessment as required by the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA).
In September 2007, MOE advised that due to the lack of support for their proposals and the creation of the new Waste Management Projects regulation under the EAA, Dongara and Arbour Power have withdrawn their proposals relating to the use of the waste pellets.
In addition, environmental and citizen groups are appealing MOE’s decision to allow Lafarge Canada Inc. to burn tires and EnerPax pellets at its cement plant in Bath, Ontario. The leave to appeal application is discussed in section 7 in this Annual Report.
ECO comment
The ECO commends MOE for addressing the concerns raised by the commenters in its decisions on the two Cs of A issued for the Dongara Pellet Factory. In issuing the Cs of A, MOE emphasized that the proponent had a responsibility to ensure it operates the site in a manner that does not result in nuisances or health and safety hazards to local residents and businesses. The complaints response procedures are positive and intended to ensure most complaints are resolved effectively and quickly. MOE and the proponent are also commended for providing a detailed description of the pellet facility operation in the s.27 proposal notice.
The safety of pelletized waste products needs to be studied further before changes are made to the legislative safeguards in place. The ECO intends to monitor the ERT hearings on the appeal from MOE’s decision to permit Lafarge Canada Inc. to burn EnerPax waste pellets and tires in its cement kiln in Bath.
| This is an article from the 2006/07 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2007. "Interesting Instruments on the Registry: Waste Pelletization." Reconciling our Priorities, ECO Annual Report, 2006-07. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 128-131.
