Sludge Watch ==> Pelham Paper Sludge - one man's sludge another person's clean fill

[maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca]

http://www.niagarathisweek.com/na/news/story/3571682p-4127071c.html


Randy Desnoyers, spokesperson for a group of Fenwick residents opposed to 
the construction of a sound berm at 325 Church St., produces two mason jars 
at a June 21 special town council meeting to illustrate concerns over the 
health impacts of Sound-Sorb, the material being used to build the berm. 
Desnoyers challenged staff from the Ontario Ministry of Environment to dump 
a healthy fish from one jar into a second jar of dark liquid Desnoyers said 
originated from the berm.





1 man's sludge is clean, safe fill to another


Paul Baswick
Jun 30, 2006

Pelham town council is pushing for tougher rules governing the use of 
Sound-Sorb, the material at the heart of a controversial berm construction 
project in Fenwick.
The construction of an L-shaped berm at 325 Church St. has sparked concerns 
among village residents that Sound-Sorb--a mix of paper fibre biosolids and 
sand being used to build the berm--poses health and environmental risks.

More than 150 residents packed the Fenwick Fire Hall June 21 for a special 
council meeting on the berm project.

At that meeting Mayor Ron Leavens pledged town council will not let "the 
issue die" until the provincial Ministry of Environment acts to protect the 
public from potential risks resulting from the use of Sound-Sorb.

Opponents of the berm project have accused the environment ministry of 
dragging its feet by failing to adopt recommendations in an expert panel 
report released 18 months ago.

The report recommends that Sound-Sorb, a paper recycling byproduct, be 
regulated under the MOE's Certificate of Approval process, which covers the 
dumping of other wastes. Currently, the ministry classifies Sound-Sorb as a 
building material, not a waste product.

Two days before the June 21 public meeting, council passed a resolution 
calling on the ministry to adopt all the recommendations of the expert panel 
report. Council also called on the environment ministry to declare a 
moratorium on the construction of any new berms with Sound-Sorb until those 
recommendations are in place.

In addition, Leavens announced at the June 21 public meeting that town 
council will receive a draft site alteration bylaw on or before July 17.

"This bylaw will give us some control over the construction of berms in 
Pelham," said Leavens.

"I want to make it perfectly clear it will not give us total control, 
because there is legislation both provincial and federal that supercedes our 
bylaws."

The June 21 special meeting was called with the purpose of "disseminating 
accurate information" related to the construction of the Church Street berm, 
said Mayor Leavens.

However, facts and figures offered by speakers on opposite sides of the 
controversy varied wildly at Wednesday's meeting. One of the main points of 
contention was whether Sound-Sorb threatens the health of nearby residents.

"Paper fibre residual, or paper fibre biosolids ,or 'sludge' as people like 
to call it, has been tested and monitored to death. This isn't something 
that's new, it's been around for a long time," said David Brenzil of Empire 
Agri-Services, who was contracted by property owner James Grove to build the 
berm.

"It's been in the community. I drove in here tonight and I've gone past 
several sites where the material has been put in the last 10 years without 
adverse affect.

"If the material were of a hazardous nature, the MOE would not let it go out 
the gate at the plant," he said.

Carolyn Botari, one of the residents opposed to the berm, disagreed. She 
said research has shown Sound-Sorb to contain such potentially hazardous 
materials as e-coli and fecal chloroform.

Randy Desnoyers, another resident who has taken a lead role in the 
community's opposition to the berm, dramatically illustrated uncertainty 
over the safety of Sound-Sorb by producing two mason jars - one containing a 
sunfish in water, the other filled with a dark liquid he said originated 
from the Church Street berm.

Desnoyers challenged Paul Nieweglowski of the MOE's district office to empty 
the sunfish into the jar of dark liquid to show the runoff liquid is safe. 
Nieweglowski declined.

Desnoyers said a group of residents carried out such an experiment. He 
explained residents submerged a sunfish--a resilient species, he noted, 
which can thrive in muddy waters - in a jar of the dark liquid.

Desnoyers said within one minute, the fish was dead.

"I'm no expert, but I wouldn't want to be drinking this stuff," said 
Desnoyers.

Carl Hipkiss, who lives about 200 yards from the berm, said odours coming 
from the berm are "unbearable" at times. "Last night, for example, at the 
end of the night my daughter was going to bed and she brushed her teeth and 
asked why the water was tasting and smelling so funny.

"We're on a cistern where we live at 305 Church Street. Right now what I'm 
having to do is not only have my water tested for fear of what's in it, but 
it's also having a nasty odour that we can tell right off the bat that 
there's something wrong."

Brenzil said his company is currently taking steps to control odour problems 
at the site. It has hired an outside consulting firm to assess the odour 
problem and to recommend odour suppression measures at the site. Brenzil 
estimated it will take another three weeks, depending on weather, to 
complete the berm, and about another month before the berm has settled and 
is sodded.

A second clay berm has been constructed at the site to prevent runoff from 
the main berm from escaping on to neighbouring properties.

Another point of contention, meanwhile, is the quantity of Sound-Sorb that 
will end up onsite. Brenzil said once completed, the L-shaped berm will have 
a footprint of 300 by 70 feet, and 180 by 70 feet, and will contain about 
22,000 tonnes of Sound-Sorb. But Hipkiss said based on the size and 
quantities of trucks residents have observed heading to the berm site, the 
berm will hold between 80,000 to 100,000 tonnes.

Some residents at the meeting also questioned the stated purpose of the 
berm's construction, claiming that rather than dampening noise from a nearby 
railway, the project's primary objective appeared to be finding a place to 
store waste--a suggestion Brenzil flatly denied.

Nieweglowski said his office has received more than 40 complaints from 
residents over the past two months. He said staff from the district office 
has been to the site 16 times, collecting material and surface water 
samples.

"We have been spending a lot of time trying to validate (residents') 
concerns and doing our best to ensure that we do everything we can that if 
there is an adverse effect, that we have the ability to take other measures 
with the owner," he said.

"We've put a priority on the Ministry of Environment lab analyzing the 
samples and we've been assured the samples should be coming in shortly, so 
we should have a good assessment of what's going on out there."

Joseph Kos of Fonthill told Nieweglowski residents fear the province will 
not act quickly enough.

"What sort of confidence can people have in the process? It took more than 
300 years to verify that smoking was deleterious to our health," he said.

Nieweglowski said while he understands the frustration of residents, any 
further action by the ministry would have to be supported by "good science" 
that can stand up to an appeal.

Leavens closed the meeting by thanking citizens for "bringing to council's 
attention what was going on before we actually knew what was happening, and 
for working with us to find a solution."

He also commended Niagara Centre MPP Peter Kormos and Erie-Lincoln MPP Tim 
Hudak for continuing to press provincial Environment Minister Laurel Broten 
for answers on the Sound-Sorb issue.

"That is the kind of political pressure we need to continue both in the 
legislature and from town council to get this minister to move," said 
Leavens.

"When and if she grants me an audience, whether it's in Toronto or here in 
the Town of Pelham, I will inform the residents ... and we will let you know 
what the outcome of that meeting is."

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

Sludgewatch Admin:

This material is certainly not 'inert fill'.  It is a putrid, decomposing 
material...so it is certainly not 'inert'. It does not appear to meet the 
definition of inert fill posted by the Associated Environmental Site 
Assessors.  It doesn't meet Table F of the Ontario Backround Soil 
Tables...which has been considered the criteria for inert fill.


www.aesac.ca/regs.htm