March 08, 2010

The next edition of HazMat Management magazine
Posted by Guy Crittenden at 08:51 PM

I thought readers might like to know what's coming in the next edition -- Winter 2010 -- of HazMat Management magazine, which is 56 pages long and goes on press in a day or two (in the mail mid-month). Extra copies will be distributed at the Globe 2010 show in Vancouver, BC.


COVER STORY: ASBESTOS ABATEMENT
When the Tsuu T’ina Nation reserve near Calgary, Alberta decided to demolish its Black Bear Crossing military housing development, the discovery of asbestos generated technical challenges and a practical solution.
by Rob Smith 8

FEATURES

PERSONAL PROTECTION
ONESuit protective suit helps in chlorine gas incident.
by Peter Kirk 13

SPILL CLEANUP
Sorbents for in-plant spills.
by John Hosty 16

DEPARTMENTS

Editorial 4
Up Front 6
Environment Business 46
HazMat Products 47
Chemical Corner 50
News 51
Ad Index 53
Blog 54

Brownfields Marketplace supplement – pages 31-43

EDITORIAL
BC Brownfields Renewal Strategy
by Jamie Ross 31

REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY
Dispelling myths about chemical oxidation.
by Christina Caldwell 34

SOIL WASHING
Dredging and dewatering contaminated soil.
by Bastiaan Lammers 37

SOIL WASHING SIDEBAR
Ontario-Netherlands cooperation on remediation.
by Hans van Duijne 40

CLEANTECH CANADA supplement – pages 17-30

EDITORIAL
Announcing CleanTech North.
by David Pamenter 18

COVER STORY
Ontario Solar FIT program.
by David Oxtoby 19

WATERWORKS
Robot device for pipe inspection.
by Michael Stadnyckyj 22

INFRASTRUCTURE
Phosphorous recovery from wastewater.
by Phillip Abrary 24

WASTE-TO-ENERGY
Plasma gasifi cation for municipal solid waste.
by Rod Bryden 26

CLIMATE CHANGE
BC programs to reduce GHG emissions.
by Tony Crossman 29

February 16, 2010

Our new website design
Posted by Guy Crittenden at 01:44 PM

Welcome everybody to our new website design! Kudos to Gary Fleming and the IT department at Business Information Group for developing the new look and functionality of our new site.

The main differences you'll notice are:

-- The navigation buttons for different areas of our site are a simple horizontal row across the top of the page, without the redundant vertical ones that used to be on the left side of the home page.

-- In addition to our Headline News in the middle of the home page, there's now a space on the left side of the home page for one or more Feature Articles, that also allows for a robust use of color photos. Watch for more special news coverage, more "people in the news" and industry events, and highlighted useful products and equipment here.

-- Overall, a less cluttered, user-friendly website with video and other multi-media programming.

Finally, the changes are more than cosmetic. The new design is also part of a shift to a totally new online publishing platform that will enable us to seemlessly offer visitors more information products and services. So, visit us regularly. We're determined that our website be the destination of choice for professionals in the environmental services business in Canada.

-- ed.

January 26, 2010

Wisdom from military manuals
Posted by Guy Crittenden at 03:13 AM

I thought readers would appreciate this. Perhaps we could create a similar list from environmental equipment and service manuals or instructions.


WISDOM FROM MILITARY MANUALS

'If the enemy is in range, so are you.' - Infantry Journal-

'It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed.' -
US.Air Force Manual -

'Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword, obviously never encountered automatic weapons.' - General MacArthur -

'You, you, and you ... Panic. The rest of you, come with me.' - Infantry Sgt.-

'Tracers work both ways.' – Army Ordnance Manual-

'Five second fuses last about three seconds.' -Infantry Journal -

The three most useless things in aviation are: Fuel in the bowser (mobile fuel tank on the runway); Runway behind you; and Air above you. –Basic Flight Training Manual-

'Any ship can be a minesweeper. Once.' - Naval Ops Manual -

'Never tell the Platoon Sergeant you have nothing to do.' - Unknown Infantry Recruit-

'If you see a bomb technician running, try to keep up to him.' -Infantry Journal-

'Yea, Though I Fly Through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil. For I am at 50,000 Feet and Climbing.' - Sign over SR71 Wing Ops-

'You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3.' -Paul F. Crickmore (SR71 test pilot)-

'The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.' -Unknown Author-

'If the wings are traveling faster than the fuselage it has to be a helicopter -- and therefore, unsafe.' – Fixed Wing Pilot-

'When one engine fails on a twin-engine airplane, you always have enough power left to get you to the scene of the crash.' -Multi-Engine Training Manual-

'Without ammunition, the Air Force is just an expensive flying club.' -Unknown Author-

'If you hear me yell;"Eject, Eject, Eject!", the last two will be echos.' If you stop to ask "Why?", you'll be talking to yourself, because by then you'll be the pilot.' -Pre-flight
Briefing from a Canadian F104 Pilot-

'What is the similarity between air traffic controllers and pilots? If a pilot screws up, the pilot dies; but if ATC screws up, .... the pilot dies.' -Sign over Control Tower Door-

'Never trade luck for skill.' -Author Unknown-

The three most common expressions (or famous last words) in military aviation are:
'Didyou feel that?' 'What's that noise?' and 'OhS...!' -Authors Unknown-

'Airspeed, altitude and brains. Two are always needed to successfully complete the flight.' -Basic Flight Training Manual-

'Mankind has a perfect record in aviation - we have never left one up there!' - Unknown Author -

'Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it.' - Emergency Checklist-

'The Piper Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill you.' - Attributed to Max Stanley (Northrop test pilot) -

'There is no reason to fly through a thunderstorm in peacetime.' -Sign over Squadron Ops Desk at Davis-Montham AFB, AZ-

'If something hasn't broken on your helicopter, it's about to.'- Sign over Carrier Group Operations Desk-

'You know that your landing gear is up and locked when it takes full power to taxi to the terminal.' - Lead-in Fighter Training Manual -

As the test pilot climbs out of the experimental aircraft, having torn off the wings and tail in the crash landing, the crash truck arrives. The rescuer sees the bloodied pilot and asks,' What happened?' The pilot's reply: 'I don't know, I just got here myself!'

January 19, 2010

Google and Climategate
Posted by Guy Crittenden at 12:45 AM

This is a very interesting article about how the Google search engine allegedly censors news, including information from unpopular climate change skeptics.


Better off with Bing
Lawrence Solomon
16 Jan 2010
Financial Post

Googlegate: The search engine may be standing up to Chinese censors. What about Google’s own censors?

This week, Google announced an end to its long-standing collaboration with the Chinese Communists — it will no longer censor users inside China.

That’s good of it. Maybe Google will now also stop using its search engine to censor the rest of us, in the Western countries.

Search for “Googlegate” on Google and you’ll get a paltry result (my result yesterday was 29,300). Search for “Googlegate” on Bing, Microsoft’s search engine competitor, and the result numbers an eye-popping 72.4 million. If you’re a regular Google user, as opposed to a Bing user, you might not even know that “Googlegate” has been a hot topic for years in the blogosphere — that’s the power that comes of being able to control information.

Despite Google’s motto of “Do No Evil,” it has long been controversial and suspected of evil-doing — and not just in its cooperation with China, or in protecting itself by hiding criticism of itself from unsuspecting Google users. In recent months, most of the evil-doing has focused on the Climategate scandal, the startling emails from the Climate Research Unit in the UK that show climate change scientists to be cooking the books.

For many weeks now, readers have been sending me emails describing how Google has been doing its best to hide information relating to Climategate, which has been the single biggest story on the Internet since the Climategate emails came to light on November 19. By Nov. 26, the term had gone viral and Google returned more results for “climategate” (10.4 million) than for “global warming” (10.1 million). As the Climate Scandal exploded, and increasing numbers of blog sites covered it, the number of web pages with Climategate continued to climb. On Dec. 7, Google’s search engine found 31.6 million hits for people who searched for “Climategate.”

Sometime around then, in early December, Google began to minimize the Climategate scandal by hiding Climategate pages from its users. By Dec. 17, the number of climategate pages that a Google search found dropped by almost 10 million, to 22.2 million. One day later Google dropped its find by another 8 million pages, to 14.1 million. By Dec. 23, Google could find only 7.5 million hits and on Dec. 24 just 6 million. And yesterday, when I checked, Google reported a mere 1.8 million climategate pages.

Bing, in contrast, didn’t make climategate pages disappear. As you’d expect from a search engine that wasn’t manipulating data, search results on Bing climbed steadily until they peaked at around 51 million, where they have remained since.

Starting in late November, Google has been keeping the public in the dark about Climategate in other ways, too. Ordinarily, when people begin keying in their search terms, Google helpfully suggests the balance of their text, through an automatic feature it calls Google Suggests.

At the very beginning of the Climategate scandal, before it became huge, Google Suggests worked as advertised. If someone typed in c-l-i-, Google would have shown them “climategate” on a list of options. Many people, in fact, learned about Climategate this very way, because most major media outlets had not yet picked up on the scandal. As Climategate rose in intensity, the term also rose in prominence on the Google Suggest list — anyone keying in c-l-i would see “climategate” at the top of the list.

But suddenly in late November, for reasons known only to Google, Google often would not suggest “climategate” to those who keyed in c-l-i. Even c-l-i-m-a or c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t weren’t enough to solicit a suggestion. Bing, in contrast, did not and does not steer users away from climategate — it has consistently suggested “climategate” to those who keyed in c-l-i or even c-l.

For those whom Google can’t steer away from “climategate,” and who key in all 11 letters to learn about the eye-opening emails, Google goes the extra yard in keeping people in the dark — it dishes up a page that trivializes the scientific significance of climategate. Those who click on Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” after asking for “climategate” find themselves on a Wikipedia page entitled “Climatic Research Unit hacking incident” that downplays the content of the emails and focuses on the “unauthorised release of thousands of emails and other documents obtained through the hacking of a server,” the “illegal taking of data,” the “Law enforcement agencies [that] are investigating the matter as a crime,” and “the death threats that were subsequently made against climate scientists named in the emails.”

For those who don’t use Google’s “I’m feeling lucky” feature, Google presents them with this one-sided Wikipedia page as the first item in its search results. Wikipedia actually has a page called “Climategate” that contains damning information about the scientists caught up in the scandal but its own censors won’t let the public see it — anyone who tries to key in “Climategate” on the Wikipedia site will be instantly redirected to the Wikipedia-approved version of climategate, where the scandal is described as nothing more than “a smear campaign.”

Why would Google want to tamp down interest in climategate? Money and power could have something to do with it. Search for Google and its founders and you’ll see that they have made big financial bets on global warming through investments in renewable and other green technologies; that they have a close relationship with Al Gore, that Google CEO Eric Schmidt is close to Barack Obama.

But search for Googlegate and you’ll also see that more than money is at stake. The accusations against Google of censorship are wide-spread, involving schemes to elect Barack Obama, attacks on Christianity (key in “Christianity is” and Google will suggest unflattering completions to the phrase), and political correctness (key in “Islam is” and nothing negative is suggested).

The bottom line? Google is as inscrutable as the Chinese, and perhaps no less corrupt. For safe searches, you’re best off with Bing.

January 12, 2010

Do Americans need to look north?
Posted by Guy Crittenden at 01:36 AM

I thought I'd share this editorial from Jerry Powell of the respected US trade magazine Resource Recycling. Canada's EPR programs are starting to get attention south of the border.

Do Americans need to look north?

Jerry Powell
Resource Recycling
December 2009
Editorial Perspective

As a magazine editor for nearly 30 years, I am continually intrigued with what are recycling’s hottest topics at any given point. On far too many occasions, what intrigues me doesn’t seem to resonate as strongly with others in the industry.

The most recent example is a brand new term in municipal recycling collection and processing: full EPR. Let me explain on this page what this is and why it should be among recycling’s hottest issues.

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a management system for obsolete, recoverable products. In this scheme, the makers of these products have a financial and managerial responsibility to get the used items collected, processed and recycled. EPR is typically put into place through legislation.

The most widely known EPR systems are those now approved in about 20 states, and nearly every Canadian province, for the recycling of selected electronics, such as computers, televisions and monitors.

Over half of Americans (55.1 percent) now live in states that have adopted the EPR approach for electronics. In this programs, such producers as Dell, Hewlett Packard, Sony and Panasonic must establish and maintain a recovery system in the state or province.
EPR is an approach that is being expanded quickly to other materials as well. For example, my home state of Oregon is the first state to use this concept for the recovery of post-consumer architectural paint.

Even with the rising interest, EPR has been limited to fairly small portions of the waste stream, and often to those portions that are hard to handle and recover (e.g., pharmaceuticals, paint, light bulbs, carpet, etc.). EPR in the U.S. doesn’t target common residential recyclables, such as paper, metals and plastics. Can it?

The answer is yes, given the experience in several Canadian provinces, where the makers of the things that end up in the residential recycling stream (think Coke, Heinz, Procter & Gamble, etc.) must pay a portion of the local-government costs of collecting and processing these materials.
For example, half the cost of the massive residential recycling system in Ontario is funded by these companies. In addition, these producers – called stewards – have put up $40 million ($Cn) to fund local recovery system improvements, so that residents are provided cost- effective and efficient recycling service. I happen to sit on an advisory body that develops policies for the distribution of those funds.

And now, the Ontario Minister of the Environment has decreed that the stewards will soon be required to fund all of the costs of curbside recycling. Yes, all. In a few years, local governments will be reimbursed for the costs of collecting and handling recyclables.

One of municipal recycling’s greatest barriers is that it costs money. City and county leaders are reluctant to spend more on recycling when they are being pressured to buy new fire trucks, repair school buildings, fix roads and aid the poor. Full EPR, as it’s called in Ontario, provides a way to address this funding problem. And, I’m surprised that full EPR for residential recycling has not received more attention among recycling’s most fervent advocates. You would think that governmental recycling officials would be very interested in taking a long, hard look at this option.

December 22, 2009

Merry Christmas!
Posted by Guy Crittenden at 12:08 AM

From the staff of HazMat Management magazine, Merry Christmas everybody and a Happy New Year!

The Winter 2009-2010 edition of the magazine will be in the mail at month's end and should be on your desk in early January. Enjoy!

December 15, 2009

A climate wager
Posted by Guy Crittenden at 01:38 AM

Readers know I'm a skeptic about man-made global warming, but in the interest of "balance" I reproduce below one person's opinion of Canada as a thuggish petro-state in view of the recent Copenhagen meeting. This was sent to me by a friend with whom I've made a wager that if in 20 years time the Earth heats up as some expect, or fails to do so (as I believe), the person who got it wrong owes the other person a very expensive dinner. For me, the entry below is unintentionally hilarious.


George Monbiot on Canada and tar sands (30Nov/09)

1. Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling
The tar barons have held the nation to ransom. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to a deal in Copenhagen

When you think of Canada, which qualities come to mind? The world's peacekeeper, the friendly nation, a liberal counterweight to the harsher pieties of its southern neighbour, decent, civilised, fair, well-governed? Think again. This country's government is now behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party. So amazingly destructive has Canada become, and so insistent have my Canadian friends been that I weigh into this fight, that I've broken my self-imposed ban on flying and come to Toronto.

So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man. The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush.

Until now I believed that the nation that has done most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States. I was wrong. The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works.

In 2006 the new Canadian government announced it was abandoning its targets to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol. No other country that had ratified the treaty has done this. Canada was meant to have cut emissions by 6% between 1990 and 2012. Instead they have already risen by 26%.

It is now clear that Canada will refuse to be sanctioned for abandoning its legal obligations. The Kyoto protocol can be enforced only through goodwill: countries must agree to accept punitive future obligations if they miss their current targets. But the future cut Canada has volunteered is smaller than that of any other rich nation. Never mind special measures; it won't accept even an equal share. The Canadian government is testing the international process to destruction and finding that it breaks all too easily. By demonstrating that climate sanctions aren't worth the paper they're written on, it threatens to render any treaty struck at Copenhagen void.

After giving the finger to Kyoto, Canada then set out to prevent the other nations striking a successor agreement. At the end of 2007, it singlehandedly blocked a Commonwealth resolution to support binding targets for industrialised nations. After the climate talks in Poland in December 2008, it won the Fossil of the Year award, presented by environmental groups to the country that had done most to disrupt the talks. The climate change performance index, which assesses the efforts of the world's 60 richest nations, was published in the same month. Saudi Arabia came 60th. Canada came 59th.

In June this year the media obtained Canadian briefing documents which showed the government was scheming to divide the Europeans. During the meeting in Bangkok in October, almost the entire developing world bloc walked out when the Canadian delegate was speaking, as they were so revolted by his bullying. Last week the Commonwealth heads of government battled for hours (and eventually won) against Canada's obstructions. A concerted campaign has now begun to expel Canada from the Commonwealth.

In Copenhagen next week, this country will do everything in its power to wreck the talks. The rest of the world must do everything in its power to stop it. But such is the fragile nature of climate agreements that one rich nation – especially a member of the G8, the Commonwealth and the Kyoto group of industrialised countries – could scupper the treaty. Canada now threatens the wellbeing of the world.

Why? There's a simple answer: Canada is developing the world's second largest reserve of oil. Did I say oil? It's actually a filthy mixture of bitumen, sand, heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals. The tar sands, most of which occur in Alberta, are being extracted by the biggest opencast mining operation on earth. An area the size of England, comprising pristine forests and marshes, will be be dug up – unless the Canadians can stop this madness. Already it looks like a scene from the end of the world: the strip-miners are creating a churned black hell on an unimaginable scale.

To extract oil from this mess, it needs to be heated and washed. Three barrels of water are used to process one barrel of oil. The contaminated water is held in vast tailings ponds, some so toxic that the tar companies employ people to scoop dead birds off the surface. Most are unlined. They leak organic poisons, arsenic and mercury into the rivers. The First Nations people living downstream have developed a range of exotic cancers and auto-immune diseases.

Refining tar sands requires two to three times as much energy as refining crude oil. The companies exploiting them burn enough natural gas to heat six million homes. Alberta's tar sands operation is the world's biggest single industrial source of carbon emissions. By 2020, if the current growth continues, it will produce more greenhouse gases than Ireland or Denmark. Already, thanks in part to the tar mining, Canadians have almost the highest per capita emissions on earth, and the stripping of Alberta has scarcely begun.

Canada hasn't acted alone. The biggest leaseholder in the tar sands is Shell, a company that has spent millions persuading the public that it respects the environment. The other great greenwasher, BP, initially decided to stay out of tar. Now it has invested in plants built to process it. The British bank RBS, 70% of which belongs to you and me (the government's share will soon rise to 84%), has lent or underwritten £8bn for mining the tar sands.

The purpose of Canada's assault on the international talks is to protect this industry. This is not a poor nation. It does not depend for its economic survival on exploiting this resource. But the tar barons of Alberta have been able to hold the whole country to ransom. They have captured Canada's politics and are turning this lovely country into a cruel and thuggish place.

Canada is a cultured, peaceful nation, which every so often allows a band of Neanderthals to trample over it. Timber firms were licensed to log the old-growth forest in Clayaquot Sound; fishing companies were permitted to destroy the Grand Banks: in both cases these get-rich-quick schemes impoverished Canada and its reputation. But this is much worse, as it affects the whole world. The government's scheming at the climate talks is doing for its national image what whaling has done for Japan.

I will not pretend that this country is the only obstacle to an agreement at Copenhagen. But it is the major one. It feels odd to be writing this. The immediate threat to the global effort to sustain a peaceful and stable world comes not from Saudi Arabia or Iran or China. It comes from Canada. How could that be true?

Categories

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2