Sludge Watch ==> Region of Durham -Dear Minister - paper sludge needs government waste permit

[maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca]

Sludgewatch Admin

Rural residents and communities continue to ask the Ontario government to 
properly regulate the use of Atlantic Packaging and other paper mill sludges 
under Certificate of Approval (gov't waste permit) as recommended by the 
Ministry's hand picked panel of experts.

A year and half have gone by since the Expert Panel made their 
recommendations which suggested composting the sludge but continuing to 
mantain management of the composted material as waste under a provincial 
permit.  see Expert Panel report: 
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/techdocs/5011e.pdf

It seems that some of the staff at the Ministry continue to mislead the 
Minister as to the 'safety' of this sludge ... sludge that contain 500,000 
ecoli per gram, 13,000 ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons (12 times over the 
contaminated site guideline , and leaves a leachate high in acrilamide 
monomer....according to government tests.

The sludge was codigested with sewage sludge when the digesters were 
initiated...and this has populated the sludge with intestinal tract 
bacterial like fecal streptoccus and E.coli.

The government has, without informing the public, signed a deal with the 
waste hauler Skip Ambrose, to abide by a 'best management practice' when 
spreading sludge as a soil conditioner...and is failing to implement the 
stringent requirements recommended by their own experts and by the public.

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/techdocs/4277e_tables.pdf

................................................
Clarington council asks for answers on biosolids

CLARINGTON ONTARIO CANADA -- The Region should not go ahead and allow for 
the mixing of
compost with paper-fibre biosolids until the recommendations of a provincial
experts ...
http://www.durhamregion.com/dr/regions/clarington/story/3481403p-4021686c.ht
ml - 05-05-06

Clarington This Week

Clarington council asks for answers on biosolids

May 5, 2006
By Jennifer Stone

CLARINGTON -- The Region should not go ahead and allow for the mixing of
compost with paper-fibre biosolids until the recommendations of a provincial
experts panel are followed, and safety is ensured, says a resolution passed
by Clarington council Monday.
The resolution calls for the Ontario Environment Ministry to regulate such
products throughout transportation, processing, storage or stockpiling, and
final resting site under a Certificate of Approval, and under the provisions
of the Nutrient Management Act in the case of agricultural applications.

"I'm hoping to send the message that we really, really need to find out what
this stuff does, and if it turns out it does nothing, great," said
Councillor Adrian Foster, who moved the resolution.

Nitro-Sorb, which is made up of paper sludge left over from the recycling
process mixed with compost, and Sound-Sorb, which is paper sludge mixed with
sand, have been the subject of concern for some time from a number of
groups, most notably Protect The Ridges. Over a year ago, an MOE experts
panel released a number of recommendations on the product, including that it
needs to be controlled by Ministry Certificates of Approval or other legal
instruments to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

Sound-Sorb is often used as filler in berms, while Nitro-Sorb is spread on
some farm fields and ploughed in, marketed as fertilizer.

The resolution said "the Municipality of Clarington does not support the
concept of mixing paper-fibre solids with compost as contemplated in the
contract with Waste Management of Canada Corp. until the recommendations of
the Experts Panel are implemented by the MOE."

It's just a matter of ensuring it's safe, said Coun. Foster.

"I would like to be confident that we're not doing any damage," he said.

Deb Vice of Protect the Ridges called Clarington's resolution a "huge step
in the right direction.

"We have been pressing the Region and municipalities to be accountable for
the waste they produce. I'm hoping the Ministry will step up to the plate
and bring in the recommendations of the panel they hired," she said, noting
some of the recommendations, such as groundwater monitoring, are being
implemented.

But, it still needs to be treated and regulated as waste, said Ms. Vice.

"This is, for six long years, what we've been struggling to do is have it
regulated by the MOE," she said.

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

With thanks to Deb Vice from Protect the Ridges for her tireless 
informational work:

Sound-Sorb

Why the concern for TPH's?

3.1.3 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
The Expert Panel states:  The concern is related to there persistence in
the environment, and their potential to reach human receptors or other
ecological receptors through various pathways of exposure".  pg. 16
The PFB used in Sound-Sorb contains TPH, Testing for TPH is recommended
since TPH is present in the PFB at amounts that exceed Table 1 and 2
guidelines and since TPH can act as an indicator of the possible
presence of organic contaminants that could be a concern but are NOT
BEING MONITORED'.  The Expert Panel reviewed the analysis of the
hydrocarbons contained in some samples of the PFB and determined that
they were similar to a  degradedoil mixture and easily capable of being
degraded further to levels below guidelines.  The most toxic compounds
of TPHs are usually the PAHs and these were   well below concern levels
in the PFB samples tested by the MOE."  pg. 15

However, According to Sierra Legal Defense Fund:

"Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons:

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the sound sorb material were found at
concentrations (of 3400 ug/g) higher than the Ontario Contaminated Site
Guideline (of 1000 ug/g).  The MOE study notes that the majority of the
total petroleum hydrocarbons were of the 'heavy variety' and predicts
that they will tend to persist in the berm rather than leach, and are
subject to biodegradation.  The Ministry does acknowledge a potential
risk and recommends further testing.  "The contaminated site guidelines
for petroleum hydrocarbons reflect the risk associated with movement of
the hydrocarbons through the soil."1

"Petroleum hydrocarbons in the environment are a concern for a number of
reasons.  First, their reduced nature and volatility pose a
fire/explosion hazard.  Second, most petroleum hydrocarbon constituents
are toxic to some degree.  Third, lighter hydrocarbons are mobile and
can be a problem at considerable distances from their point of release
due to transport in ground, water or air.  Fourth, larger and branched
chain hydrocarbons are persistent in the environment.  Fifth, petroleum
hydrocarbons may create aesthetic problems such as offensive odour,
taste or appearance in environmental media.  Finally, under some
conditions petroleum hydrocarbons can degrade soil quality by
interfering with water retention and transmission, and with nutrient
supplies."2
(Sierra Legal Defense Fund./Kim Mandzy to Minister  Stockwell August 23,
2002)
Concern for TPH  (as reported as sampled and tested by MOE staff/not
part of Expert Panel Report but results included in binder provided to
panel)
Fresh PFB from Atlantic Packaging 11, 000 ug/g dry  weight
Table A - Contaminated Site Guidelines 1100 ug/g dry wt.
East Elgin Sportsmen Association (August 16, 2002 /berm is about 1 1/2
years old)
EESA North Berm Core #1 (A)   20 cm depth into berm    8200 ug/g dry wt
EESA North Berm Core #1 (B)  20 - 50 cm depth             13, 000 ug/g
dry wt
EESA East Berm Core #2 0-50 cm depth                            7800
ug/g    dry wt
Note:  EESA North Berm - Core #1 (B) is 12 times higher than the Ontario
Contaminated Site Guidelines will allow. The fresh PFB that was
delivered to the EESA site was 10 times higher than the Ontario
Contaminated Site Guidelines will allow.
Madoc (August 13, 2003/  berm in place since early 2001/berm is over 2
years old)
Core #1 7930 ug/g, Core #2 9670 ug/g

Orillia  (MOE sampled July 31, 2003 /berm in place April 2000/ over 3
years old)
Berm #1 =4910, Berm #2 =2750, Berm #3 =3100, Berm #4 =3900

NOTE :  ALL SAMPLES EXCEED Table A Contaminated Site criteria for
recreational residential land use potable water.  Table F Typical
Ontario Range of Background Soil Concentrations are NA.
The MOE states in the Orillia Gun Club Report, December 2003 "With the
exception of TPH, all parameters measured in the MDAH berm were present
in concentrations lower than those found in soils in Ontario which have
not been contaminated by commercial or industrial activity (Table F.
Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario).  The RISKS TO HUMAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATED WITH THE TPH LEVELS IN SOUND-SORB
ARE CURRENTLY BEING ADDRESSED IN A SITE SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT (SSRA)
AT THE OSHAWA SKEET AND GUN CLUB."
However, the final Site Specific Risk Assessment  report (completed by 
Cantox) has still not been
released to the public through the Standards Development Branch.

(Sludgewatch Admin: interesting...I wonder what is in it that the gov't 
doesn't want us to know?)