Sludge Watch ==> Ontario Paper Sludge: Enviro group tells Minister Broten to act on expert panel

[Maureen Reilly]

.

The Hon. Laurel Broten
Minister of the Environment
135 St. Clair Ave. West, 12th Floor
Toronto, ON M4V 1P5

April 2, 2007



Dear Minister

In January 2005 the “Report of the Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb” clearly 
stated that the “Expert Panel is recommending that the bulk use of PFBs be 
handled under MOE Certificates of Approval for all steps of its life-cycle 
or by other legal instruments that can provide equal or better protection 
for both human health and the environment. The product formulation exemption 
should not be applied to Sound-Sorb…Paper biosolids are a waste. Their bulk 
use in the environment even after composting requires regulatory control… 
The panel felt that Sound-Sorb should not be used in an uncontrolled manner 
as an exempt waste as it is at present. The Panel believes that regulatory 
instruments that would control Sound-Sorb in its use in berms should provide 
the means to exert the regulatory control that the MOE may deem appropriate 
for other bulk uses of PFB.”

In January 2006 your Expert Panel Report on “Water Well Sustainability in 
Ontario” clearly stated that “Legislative exemptions (i.e. to the EPA) 
should be given after extensive studies/field trials have been conducted.  
Land based disposal of products with no benefit to the land should be 
prohibited”.  (pg 134)

Support for these recommendations has come from the Environmental 
Commissioner, Conservation Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, 
alpha (Association of Local Public Health Associations) as well as from 
groups and citizens across the entire province.

In your letter dated March 14, 2007 to Protect the Ridges you mention 
negotiating agreements with the paper mill companies and that you are still 
“currently considering options to manage the use of pulp and paper biosolids 
when applied to land. “

Although these developments may be perceived as progress some serious 
concerns remain unaddressed.

-	There is no requirement for the paper companies to compost the PFB (a KEY 
recommendation).  “Atlantic shall apply for and, once approval is given by 
the Ministry, undertake a pilot project to compost PFBs in accordance with 
the recommendations made in the Experts Panel Final Report on Sound-Sorb”.

-	 The Site Specific Risk Assessment (SSRA) for the Oshawa berm that was 
initiated in 2001 (nearly 6 years ago) has STILL not been released to the 
public.

-	In the case of the Oshawa berm, we have only ONE year of inconsistent data 
and no ground water monitoring test results since 2003.  Although permission 
must be granted by the landowner for well sampling Atlantic is to notify the 
Ministry should landowner refuse to grant access to the property, and this 
has not been the case, so that, we presume that there are no access issues.

We, therefore, submit that the MOE’s decision to exempt paper sludge under 
subsection 3(2)1(i) is not based upon a sound interpretation of the 
governing regulatory provisions.

The current practice constitutes land application of a waste without proven 
benefit.

Likewise, a clear definition of Nitro-Sorb (believed to be PFB mixed with 
about 10% compost) used as a ‘soil conditioner’ directly on crop land, has 
yet to be provided to the public.  Therefore, like Sound-sorb, as an exempt 
material Nitro-Sorb has not been subject to MOE control.  Importantly, 
“Under the regulatory exemption the material could legally contain 
municipal, hazardous or liquid industrial waste.”

The current practice of PFB waste generator self-regulation is not 
acceptable to the Expert Panel, or to any of the other municipal, health or 
conservation groups that have studied the issue.

This, therefore reiterates the Protect the Ridges position stressing the 
requirement for accountability:

- through tighter legislation/regulations to prevent side-stepping of the 
regulations by way of exemptions,

- through 'production-to-disposal' waste management regulations and 
accountability and,

- through mandatory Certificates of Approval for all waste disposal.

What we want is responsible disposal of paper fibre biosolids and 
scientifically and environmentally sound policy to regulate that disposal.  
The ministry should immediately change the regulations as recommended by two 
of your own expert panels (the panels on Sound-sorb and Water Well 
Sustainability).

Solving one problem by creating another potentially far more damaging one is 
not an alternative.



Sincerely,


Deb Vice	Martin Feaver
Protect the Ridges Co-Chair	Protect the Ridges Co-Chair
4220 Townline Rd. N	3875 Grandview St. N.,
Blackstock, Ontario LOB 1BO	 Oshawa, ON L1H 7K4
Tel: 905-655-5045	Tel:  905-655-8846



Enclosed:
Implementation of the Recommendations on the Expert Panel on Sound-Sorb and 
Water Well Sustainability In Ontario (Final Report January 30, 2006)
Support for the Expert Panel on Sound-Sorb




Implementation of the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Sound-sorb.

On behalf of Protect the Ridges we would like to reiterate again the need 
for the immediate implementation of the Recommendations of the Expert Panel 
on Sound-Sorb finalized in January 2005.

These recommendations are:

1. There is no need to ban the use of PFB mixed with mineral soil 
(Sound-Sorb) for bulk use in berms.

"Paper fibre biosolids are a waste.  Their bulk use in the environment even 
after composting requires regulatory control

2. There is no need to remove the OSGC berm provided long-term monitoring of 
the groundwater is continued.


Yet, to date we have just one year (for 2003) of insufficient and unreliable 
data, with no report/position from MOE, and an almost 3 year gap with no 
testing.

The second wave, or ‘ongoing’ round of groundwater testing began in April 
2006 at Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club and will include Harmony Road Composting 
facility (Oshawa).  Again, there is no plan as to how or when these results 
will be shared with the public.

The Ministry states that “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” 
(Orillia Gun Club Report, December 2003).

However, the final (OSGC) SSRA report (initiated in November 2001, completed 
by Cantox for MOE review in May 2006) has still not been released to the 
public through the Standards Development Branch.



3. Existing berms at other gun clubs should have a hydrogeological 
assessment. A monitoring regime in accord with the algorithm found in 
Chapter 4 should be established. Removal of a berm would only be appropriate 
as a mitigation option if contaminants in excess of the Ontario 
Drinking-Water Quality Standards were found in groundwater leaving the site 
or significant risks to human or environmental health were found on an SSRA 
or other risk assessment.

In the case of the Flamborough berm, “analysis from samples taken by 
Ministry staff in January 13 and 14, and February 25, 2004 from the 
discharge pipe which drains the berm indicates that the effluent failed 
toxicity testing for both trout and daphnia.  The mortality rate was 100%.  
The effluent was acutely toxic for lead, exceeded Provincial water Quality 
Objectives for pH, and E-coli and was high for suspended solids and BOD.”  
(MOE Flamborough Order #1)

-	There are now 17+ berms across the province.  Existing berms agreed for 
testing (East Elgin Sportsman’s Association, Stafford Windows, Huntsville 
Gun Club, Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club, Peterborough Gun Club (new berm) and 
Orillia Gun Club.    Again there is no commitment as to how, when or who 
will do the testing, nor is there any commitment to release of the results. 
Ministry staff have commented that Atlantic has been slow to honour the 
agreement.

The latest Scientific Data continues to validate our concerns:

In Pelham, (Regional Municipality of Niagara) “Between June 2006 and 
December 2006. Numerous samples of this contaminated run-off have been taken 
by the Ministry of the Environment (“the Ministry”). The results have been 
reviewed by the Ministry’s surface water experts who have commented that the 
contaminated run-off has been shown to have high concentrations of 
phosphorus, Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Tin-ionized Ammonia, TKN., E coli, 
Total Alkalinity and Conductivity. It is the Ministry surface water experts’ 
opinion that if discharged to a receiving watercourse, the contaminated 
run-off has the potential to cause off-site impacts to the natural 
environment and could cause an adverse effect to the aquatic environment in 
the Nunn Drain…... To date, adequate measures have not been undertaken by 
the owner to address off-site migration of contaminated run-off.”  
(7567-6WQGKS 2007/01/19)



4. PFB should be composted before it is used in a berm. -"Berms constructed 
at gun clubs that include the PFB shall contain only the following 
materials:

-Paper fibre biosolids composted according to the recently amended Ontario 
MOE Composting Guidelines (MOE May 2004) at a site controlled by a 
Certificate of Approval.

- the PFB should be transported to the composting site unmixed with other 
materials as a waste.  The composted PFB for any bulk use should remain 
under regulatory control."

In the view of the Expert Panel (pg. 29), pre composting of PFBs  would 
"kill potential pathogens like E.coli" and "reduce the load of TPHs".



Yet, in the Atlantic agreement there is no regulatory requirement for 
Atlantic to compost.  The agreement only states the need for a small test 
pilot project .

Pulp and Paper Biosolids Agreement Between:  Atlantic Packaging Products LTD 
and Ministry of the Environment of the Province of Ontario dated  June 28, 
2006.

5. COMPOSTING PILOT PROJECT (pg. 14)
(a)“Atlantic shall apply for and, once approval is given by the Ministry, 
undertake a PILOT project to compost PFBs in accordance with the 
recommendations made in the Experts Panel Final Report on Sound-Sorb.  
Atlantic shall provide to the Ministry, details including at a minimum: 
duration of the project, scope, materials used, technology to be utilized, 
parameters for testing, monitoring and reporting requirements, sampling 
regime, and quality of finished product.

(b) A test berm shall be constructed onsite of composted PFBs and uncompsted 
PFBs, such that a comparative analysis of the two technologies may be 
undertaken.  The berm shall be constructed at a mutually agreed upon site 
and shall be evaluated it against or in terms of, but not limited to:
(i) rate of acidic leachate production
(ii) monitoring for surface temperature and methane gas in the berm, to 
determine the need for ongoing methane gas monitoring;
(iii) support of vegetation, settling, sloughing of compost and erosion 
potential and
(iv) presence of E.coli and other representative bacteria and total 
petroleum hydrocarbons (F1-F4)”



5. Before a berm constructed of PFB and mineral soil is placed at any new 
location, a hydrogeological assessment should be done, and a SSRA done if 
the assessment indicates that one is necessary according to algorithm found 
in Chapter 4. The use of the proposed site for a new berm should be subject 
to MOE control by a Certificate of Approval or legal instrument that 
provides equal or better protection for human health and the environment.


6. Paper fibre biosolids should be controlled by Certificates of Approval or 
legal instruments that provide equal or better protection for human health 
and the environment at all stages from its generation, through transport, 
composting and final use in the construction of berms. The use of paper 
fibre biosolid material mixed with mineral soil should also be subject to 
MOE control with respect to its preparation and use in the environment by a 
Certificate of Approval or legal instrument that provides equal or better 
protection for human health and the environment.

To date no certificates of approval are required for Sound-Sorb or 
Nitro-Sorb.

The Concern Remains:  A clear definition of Nitro-Sorb has yet to be 
provided to the public.  “ Under the regulatory exemption the material could 
legally contain municipal, hazardous or liquid industrial waste

Water Well Sustainability in Ontario
Expert Panel Report.  Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment 
Sustainable Water Well Initiative.  Final Report.  January 30, 2006

“Table 10.1 Example of Key Issues Affecting Water Well Infrastructure 
Sustainability
Issue:  Emerging Chemical Threats (pg. 134)
Elements:
-	Length of time to address problem
-	Unknown fate/mobility/toxicity /interaction with other substances in the 
environment
Impact: Well (W), Aquifer (A) Distribution Pipe (P)
-all wells (W)
-Unconfined and deep aquifers (A)(P)

Legislative Management
-existing legislation MAY NOT APPLY
-Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990 c 0.40
-Environmental Protection Act. R.S. O. a990 c E.19

RECOMMENDATIONS
-	DIVERSION INITIATIVE SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND 
MANNER
-	Governments should be proactive in identifying managing and responding to 
new and emerging chemical threats
-	LEGISLATIVE EXEMPTIONS (i.e. to EPA) should only be given after extensive 
studies/field trials have conducted.
-	LAND-BASED DISPOSAL OF PRODUCTS WITH NO BENEFIT TO THE LAND SHOULD BE 
PROHIBITED”


The Guide for the Utiliziation of Biosolids and other Wastes on Agricultural 
Land.  March 1996
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/3425e.pdf

Pg. 6 “The document outlines criteria which must be met before biosolids or 
other waste materials can be considered for use on agricultural land.  IN 
ESSENCE, THE MATERIALS MUST BE OF BENEFIT TO CROP PRODUCTION OR SOIL HEALTH 
AND NOT DEGRADE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, BEFORE APPROVAL FOR USE WILL BE 
GIVEN BY THE MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT (MOE).  The materials should supply 
essential plant nutrients and organic matter, or other constituents that 
will maintain crop production and soil health.”.

After 11 years of renewing the Certificated of Approval  NO BENEFIT was 
PROVEN by Atlantic Packaging for land application.

The Region of Durham's peer review of the Atlantic Packaging Benefit study 
by the Soil Resource Group (SRG) "concluded that the benefits study did not 
meet, with scientific accuracy, all the requirements of Section 43 (d) of 
the Certificate of Approval.  The study, as reviewed did NOT indicate with 
any level of scientific accuracy that soil benefits have been achieved".  
(Peer Scientific Review of "Paper Fibre Biosolids (PFB) Benefits Study"  
Durham Region File No 012-000027).

.  The Sierra Legal Defence Fund has written to the Honourable Leona 
Dombrowsky, Minister of the Environment (May 26, 2004) regarding the 
exemption of paper sludge waste from Waste Management Regulations stating 
that there was a "clear discrepancy between the Ministry's recent policy 
commitment to watershed-based source protection and its regulatory policy 
with regards to the application of paper sludge". "It is submitted that the 
Ministry's decision to exempt paper sludge under subsection 3(2)1(i) is NOT 
based upon a sound interpretation of the governing regulator provisions".
In addition, Sierra Legal Defence offered these comments
1.	Ministry of the Environment exemption for Sound-Sorb ought to be revoked
Paper sludge waste is created in the recycling of post-consumer paper 
products and through other processes such as paper production from timber 
pulp.  Formerly, such waste was disposed of in approved waste disposal 
facilities.  The MOE decided in 1999 that the exemption provisions of Part V 
of the Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”) applied to Atlantic Packaging 
paper fibre waste when mixed with sand, exempting it as a waste by deeming 
it a product, Sound-Sorb.  In deciding that the exemption provisions of the 
EPA applied to paper sludge, the MOE determined that paper sludge fit within 
the subsection 3(2)1(i) exemption of the Waste Management Regulation:
3. (1) The following wastes are exempted from Part V of the Act and this 
Regulation:
7. Material set out in subsection (2).
(2) The material referred to in paragraph 7 of subsection (1) is any of the 
following:
1. Municipal waste, hazardous waste or liquid industrial waste, other than 
used or shredded or chipped tires, transferred by a generator for direct 
transportation to a site,
i. to be wholly used at the site in an ongoing agricultural, commercial, 
manufacturing or industrial process or operation used principally for 
functions other than waste management if the process or operation does not 
involve combustion or land application of the waste
The MOE reasoned in 1999 that the paper sludge was municipal waste as 
defined in the Waste Management Regulation, despite its being produced by an 
industrial process.  Assuming paper fibre waste can be deemed a municipal 
waste, subsection 3(2)1(i) of the Regulation provides two instances in which 
paper sludge can be diverted from the waste stream:
(1) It is to be used wholly at the site in an ongoing agricultural, 
commercial, manufacturing or industrial process; or
(2) It is to be used in an operation principally for functions other than 
waste management if the process or operation does not involve combustion or 
land application of the waste.
It is questionable whether the application of paper fibre waste in gun clubs 
as Sound-Sorb comes within either of these two exemptions.  First, the 
phrase “wholly at the site” suggests that a waste must be used at the site 
at which it was generated.  Clearly, the transportation of paper sludge 
waste from paper recycling facilities to gun clubs and other locales does 
meet this stipulation.
Second, the wording of the exemption suggests that diverted waste is not to 
be applied directly to land.  Despite this, the MOE reasoned that the last 
five words of this exemption “land application of the waste” were not a 
hindrance to the application of paper sludge to land in the form of berms, 
because “it is not the paper fibre but rather the product Sound-Sorb that is 
in reality being placed on the land”.  As noted by the Environmental 
Commissioner’s Office, the MOE’s continued reliance on this argument is 
“strained, circular and very unconvincing.”   It is submitted that the MOE’s 
decision to exempt paper sludge under subsection 3(2)1(i) is not based upon 
a sound interpretation of the governing regulatory provisions.”

Despite these reports,  MOE Minister Dombrowski wrote: "Nitro-Sorb meets the 
exemption requirements as outlined in Section 3(2) of Regulation 347 and, 
therefore, is not subject to the waste management requirements of the 
Environmental Protection Act (EPA).  Since the material is exempt from Part 
V of the EPA, a Certificate of Approval is not required for its use as a 
soil conditioner.  Exemptions are not granted by the ministry. It is the 
responsibility of the owner/manufacturer of the material to determine the 
applicability of the exemption. The ministry’s role is to determine that the 
exemption has been appropriately applied."

Support for the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Sound-Sorb

1.  In his 2003 report, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario says:  
"The ECO review indicates that the MOE has mishandled the Sound-Sorb issue 
repeatedly since 1999 when questions first arose about the status of this 
material.  The ministry's first, and probably most significant error was to 
exempt Sound-Sorb from the Regulation 347 of the Environmental Protection 
Act, deciding to class it as a product rather than a waste. "MOE’s  policy 
decision on Sound-Sorb was never posted on the Environmental Registry for 
public notice and comment. MOE experts reasoned that the paper mill sludge 
was municipal waste as defined in Regulation 347, even though the material 
was produced by an industrial process. Because the paper mill sludge was 
municipal waste, they determined that the following exemption of Regulation 
347 applied to Sound- Sorb: ". . . to be wholly utilized at a site in an 
ongoing agricultural, commercial, manufacturing or industrial process or 
operation used principally for functions other than waste management if the 
process or operation does not involve combustion or land application of the 
waste." (Section 3(2)1(i) of Regulation 347 RRO 1990).

MOE experts further reasoned that the last five words of this exemption 
"land application of the waste" were not a hindrance to the application of 
Sound-Sorb to land in the form of berms, because "it is not the paper fibre 
biosolids but rather the product Sound-Sorb that is in reality being placed 
on the land." MOE continues to rely on this argument. However, the ECO views 
this argument as strained, circular and very unconvincing. "The ECO agrees 
with the applicants that there is a very large and troubling discrepancy 
between MOE’s regulatory treatment of land application of paper sludge, and 
the ministry’s treatment of the very same material once it is mixed with 
sand. In March 1999, the same year that MOE determined that Sound-Sorb was 
exempt from waste management regulatory controls, MOE also issued a two-year 
certificate of approval to Atlantic Packaging to apply paper sludge on 
agricultural land. MOE issued a media backgrounder to describe this approval 
and emphasized that "stringent environmental conditions" were attached. 
Among other things, MOE required Atlantic Packaging to complete a study 
showing whether the application of paper sludge is beneficial to soil and 
crops. The company was also required to reduce the length of time that 
sludge was stored on farm fields before application, and was not allowed to 
apply sludge during the winter."

In June 2006 Ontario’s Environment Commissioner Gord Miller said the 
provincial government has repeatedly ignored his calls to regulate 
Sound-Sorb. “This is an issue I’ve talked about for five or six years,” 
Miller said. “It’s a mystery to me why the (Environment) ministry doesn’t 
regulate (Sound-Sorb) as it does other industrial wastes.  “It seems to defy 
logic.”  (St. Catharine’s Standard Ontario Canada Sludge Warning Ignored. 
June 24, 2006)


2.  alPHa  (Association of Local Public Health Agencies/Dec. 4, 2003)
"Paper fibre biosolids when defined as waste are subject to stringent 
environmental controls, due to the significant microbial activity and 
putrescence that occur during decomposition, as well as the potential 
leaching of certain toxins into groundwater or onto crops if they are 
applied on agricultural land.  These controls, which include a prohibition 
on winter application, a limit to the length of storage time and assessments 
by waste generators, do not apply to Sound-Sorb because it is defined as a 
'product' rather than a 'waste'. We are therefore urging the Ministry to  
remove this exemption, which is contradictory and unsound, and immediately 
subject the land  application of  Sound-Sorb to the proper approval 
processes and environmental controls under  Ontario Regulation 347".

  In February of this year, they passed a more recent and specific 
resolution urging the Government of Ontario to amend the Environmental 
Protection Act (EPA) such that the spreading and storage of all biosolids, 
including paper fibre biosolids, requires a certificate of approval issued 
by a Director. ( See their site for a list of concerns and their support 
http://www.alphaweb.org/land_use1.asp)


3. Conservation Ontario (the Association of Ontario Conservation 
Authorities) urged
“the provincial government to take immediate action on all of the 
recommendations of the Experts Panel on this substance, especially with 
regard to hydrogeological assessments of existing berms (recommendation #3) 
and the need for control measures in the generation, transportation, 
composting and use of PFB (recommendation #6).

4. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture whose position is: "That the 
Ontario Federation of Agriculture urge the Government of Ontario to keep 
waste products destined for further processing and or blending under the 
regulatory umbrella of the Ministry of the Environment throughout the 
transportation, processing/blending process and that the final application 
to farmland occurs with a Certificate of Approval (CofA) and under the 
provisions of the Nutrient Management Act (NMA)."
5. The Sierra Legal Foundation which submitted a position that “the risks 
associated with the application of Sound-Sorb are greater than the net 
benefit derived from diversion of paper fibre waste from waste management 
facilities.  It is for this reason that it is recommended that MOE accept 
the Experts Panel recommendations and further:
1.	Revoke the MOE’s present exemption for Sound-Sorb under the Waste 
Management Regulation;
2.	Set clear standards within which the application of Sound-Sorb will be 
permitted in future;
3.	Set testing and management protocols for existing berms so as to protect 
the natural environment and human health; and
4.	Utilize a precautionary approach to the management of risks associated 
with Sound-Sorb so as to maximize protections for the natural environment 
and human health"

6. Durham MPP John O’Toole has called on the provincial government to take 
action concerning the control of paper fibre biosolids following the 
recommendations of the provincial experts’ panel.  Mr. O’Toole has 
introduced a Private Member’s Bill (Bill 24) to require that a person obtain 
a certificate of approval from the Ministry of the Environment before 
spreading or storing sewage sludge, other biosolids and products derived 
from them.

7. The Region of Durham, which, on the recommendation of the health 
department, endorsed the OFA resolution in the spring of 2006. However, 
municipalities, despite the 'Precautionary Principle' that resulted from the 
Walkerton Inquiry, are powerless to control most of these -- often 
'creative' -- waste diversion projects as these are regulated by provincial 
statutes.

8. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA Jan. 6/S.R. #4504-05) 
supports our concerns: “It appears that this issue has been mismanaged, that 
some violations exist regarding the storage and handling of some of the 
materials of concern, and that there are valid concerns expressed by the 
residents.  After a period of 5 years the questions remain unanswered.  The 
province is the governing authority and should be urged to complete their 
analyses expeditiously and make a final ruling on all matters of concern."  
CLOCA sent a letter to the minister urging the province to bring all the 
relevant studies to conclusion in an expeditious manner and to review and 
revise Regulation 347 (3) 'specifically as it deals with processed or 
recycled waste material to provide for increased controls'.

9. Hamilton Conservation Authority HCA May 2005  “As you can see, our 
Conservation Authority has first-hand experience with the potential adverse 
effects of Sound-Sorb on natural areas as well as its potential adverse 
impacts to this Province’s drinking water resources…In addition, we 
recommend that the Ministry of the Environment take immediate action on all 
Expert Panel Report recommendations and expedite all necessary legislative, 
regulatory and policy measures to implement those actions”



10.  Regional Municipality of Durham, on December 15, 2004, passed a 
resolution:

a)  THAT the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) be urged to continue 
groundwater monitoring at and around the Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club for the 
life of the berm;
b)  THAT the Lieutenant Government in Council be urged to amend Regulation   
347 under the Environmental Protection Act by ending the exemption of paper 
fibre biosolids or products derived from them such that their spread and/or 
storage is subject to a provisional/certificate of approval issued by the  
MOE;
c)  THAT the Government of Ontario be urged to pass Bill 125, the 
Environmental Protection Amendment Act, 2004, respecting the regulation of 
the spreading and/or storage of paper fibre biosolids or products derived  
from them;
d)  THAT the MOE be urged to place a moratorium on the construction of paper 
fibre biosolids and Sound-Sorb berms;
e)  THAT the MOE be urged to place a moratorium on the stockpiling and 
storage of paper fibre biosolids on farmlands; and
f)  THAT the Premier of Ontario, Ministers of the Environment and Health & 
Long-Term Care, Durham’s MPPs, municipal Councils and conservation 
authorities, Chief Medical Officer of Health, alPHa, Independent Expert 
Panel on Sound-Sorb, Biosolids Utilization Committee, AMO, the Provincial 
opposition and environment critics, be so advised.


11.  Haldimand Federation of Agriculture (HFA) passed a motion February 9, 
2005 recommending the MOE undertake long term testing and that “Non 
Agricultural Source Materials destined for further processing and or 
blending, remain under the regulatory umbrella of the MOE throughout the 
transportation, processing/blending process, including the final application 
to farmland under a Certificate of Approval and under the Nutrient 
Management Act.

HFA  cautions farmers to consider legal implications regarding the use of 
non regulated product on their land as the sludge composition is unknown.

12.  Local Municipalities (Scugog, Clarington, Oshawa) and Region of Durham 
Endorse Expert Panel Report on Sound-Sorb

Township of Scugog April 25/05

Whereas Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has recently released the "Report 
of the Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb";
Whereas comments on the report are to be submitted by May 26, 2005;
Whereas the Township of Scugog is concerned that the use of Sound-Sorb has 
the potential to contaminate both surface and groundwater;
Whereas the Expert Panel's recommendations are consistent with the Regional 
Council's position on Sound-Sorb;
Whereas the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority also endorses all 
the Recommendations by the panel;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT the Township of Scugog respectfully requests that the Ministry adopt 
the recommendation of the Experts Panel including amending legislation to 
fully regulate the placement of Sound-Sorb in Ontario;
THAT the MOE through ad-hoc inspections and testing ensure that the products 
meet the approved compositional specification;
THAT there is strict enforcement of water quality sampling and reporting 
associated with the sites;
AND THAT FURTHERMORE, the Township of Scugog request that the MOE call for 
the discontinuation of any dumping and/or stockpiling of paper sludge on the 
Oak Ridges Moraine due to the potential for groundwater contamination in 
headwater areas.

Clarington May 16, 2005

THAT Report PSD-062 is received;
THAT Council endorse the Recommendations of the Report of the Experts Panel 
on Sound-Sorb
THAT the Minister, The Honorable Leona Dombrowsky, requested to implement 
the Recommendations immediately;
THAT the Minister also be requested to apply the recommendations of the 
Expert Panel to other products, such as Nitro-Sorb made with similar 
compositions to Sound-Sorb and mostly composed of paper fibre biosolids; and
THAT the Agriculture Committee of Clarington, Durham Region Planning and 
Health, Ministry of the Environment (York/Durham Office), John O'Toole, MPP, 
the City of Oshawa, the Township of Scugog, Protect the Ridges, interested 
parties and delegations be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-062-05 and advised 
of Council's decision on this matter."

Oshawa May 24, 2005

Recommendation
1.  That Report DS-05-152 dated May 4, 2005, from the Commissioner of 
Development Services be endorsed as the City of Oshawa's comments on the 
Report of the Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb.
2.  That municipal approval also be required for placement of this regulated 
material, including appropriate site controls implemented with the approval 
of the Council of the municipality.
3.  That a copy of Report DS-05-152 dated May 4, 2005 from the Commission of 
Development Services be forwarded to the Ministry of the Environment, The 
Regional Municipality of Durham, the Municipality of Clarington, Courtice 
Auto Wreckers Limited, Atlantic Packaging Limited, the Oshawa Skeet and Gun 
Club and the Protect the Ridges Coalition.
4.  That the Ministry of the Environment be requested to hold the public 
meeting for the experts Panel on Sound-Sorb as soon as possible.

13..  City of Kawartha Lakes Environmental Advisory Committee (CKLEAC) April 
18, 2005
“That council NOT accept PFB waste or products made from PFB until studies 
underway in adjacent municipalities conclusively demonstrate no adverse 
impacts to human health or the environment.  That Council NOT allow the use 
of PFB for agricultural land application until it has been demonstrated that 
the mater is of definite and significant benefit to agriculture”.

At the May 10th meeting of City of Kawartha Lakes  Council, the 
recommendation from the May 3rd D&PWSC meeting was accepted which is as 
follows:
RECOMMEND THAT Report DEV2005-72, “Paper Fibre Biosolids (PFB)”, be  
Received;
THAT the Public Works Department be permitted to continue using PFBs as  
approved cover material at landfill sites; and
THAT Council accept PFB material for use within the City subject to the 
following conditions:
1.  A legal opinion related to an appropriate by-law be obtained.
2.  Before PFB be allowed at any site, determination must be made if the 
site is sensitive as defined in this section.  If the area is sensitive, 
its’ use may not be permitted.  An area is defined as sensitive if:
  - it is adjacent or within an area of natural significance including :
  - A provincial park designated by a regulation under the Provincial Parks 
Act.
  - A conservation reserve established under the Public Lands Act.
  - An area of natural and scientific interest (life science) identified by 
the Ministry of Natural Resources as having provincial significance.
  - A wetland identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources as having 
provincial significance.
  - An area designated by a municipality in its official plan as 
environmentally significant, however expressed, including designations of 
areas as environmentally sensitive, as being of environmental concern and as 
being ecologically significant.
  - A habitat of endangered or threatened species identified by the Ministry 
of Natural Resources.
  - Property within an area designated as a natural core area or natural 
linkage area within the area to which the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation 
Plan under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 applies;
  - it is adjacent to or 30 meters from a water body.
  - it were to be applied on shallow soil property.  Shallow soil is defined 
here as where 1/3 or more of the area of the property consists of soil equal 
to or less than 2 metres in depth to rock or bedrock.
3.  Paper fibre biosolids should only be allowed in CKL provided a 
Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of the Environment for their use 
is obtained.  In order to apply for a Certificate of Approval the proponent 
must engage the services of a certified hydrogeologist to assess the 
proposed site.  The hydrogeological assessment should determine:
   - Whether or not it is a sensitive site
   - Whether or not the site is or is likely to be controlled under 
watershed protection legislation;
The assessment should also contain:
   - A detailed analysis of potential pathways for runoff from the proposed 
berm(s) to reach surface water;
   - Existing information on soils, bedrock and groundwater at the site with 
respect to the potential for contaminants to reach human and  environmental 
receptors;
   - Sufficient wells will be drilled and samples taken by a qualified 
person that are required for assessing the site;
   - Locations for additional monitoring wells to further establish 
direction of groundwater flow, assess upstream and downstream chemical 
parameters in the groundwater, detect leachate contamination of the 
groundwater, and impact of leachate off-site.
The hydrogeologist may recommend and/or the MOE may require more extensive 
hydrogeological assessment or a full site assessment to characterize 
potential pathways of contaminants to human and environmental receptors 
before a Certificate of approval is issued.
4.  To reduce the potential for impact of pathogens any PFB waste or product 
made from PFB waste should first be composted
5.  No certificate of approval for sensitive sites or sites controlled 
against such use by watershed protection legislation should be allowed.  Any 
Certificate of Approval issued shall cover:
   - The materials that may be used;
   - Construction and maintenance methods for berms;
   - Application methods for agricultural lands
   - A groundwater monitoring program;
   - A requirement to allow the MOE access to the monitoring wells to    
conduct research;
   - Other conditions the MOE or the City may require.
	The MOE may choose or the City may request to use legal instruments that 
provide equal or better protection than Certificates of Approval.
6.  The use of PFB in any form must not conflict with source protection 
legislation of the Province.
7.  PFB material may not be spread on tile drained agricultural lands
8.  PFB material not be allowed on residential or recreational properties.
CARRIED (DPW2005-182) unanimously by Council.  In addition to the 
recommendation from the CKLEAC, Council has requested a legal opinion on the 
resolution.


14.  Municipality of Centre Hastings By-Law No 2005-14
Bylaw to designate an interim control area to regulate paper fibre biosolids 
in the Municipality of Centre Hastings.  “And Whereas the council of the 
Corporation of the Municipality of Centre Hastings has directed that prior 
to any application of Paper Fibre Biosolids on any property located within 
the Corporation of the Municipality of Centre Hastings a Environmental 
Assessment and a Site Specific Risk Assessment shall be completed and a 
letter of authorization shall be received from the Ministry of the 
Environment.”



15.  Canadian Auto Workers Durham Regional Environment Council (May 25/05)
“In conclusion: We the Executive of CAW DREC believe that these products, 
“Sound-Sorb” and “Nitro-Sorb” should be treated under the same regulations 
as a waste product. We also believe that the MOE should come good on their 
promise to help the municipalities provide Healthy and Safe communited to 
live and work in.”


16.  Ontario Horiticultural Association (Oct 1, 2001 with a membership of 
44, 000)
“There must not be the practice of dumping it into a hole or abandoned 
mines, mixing it with sand or soil will not make it safe.  Your office may 
use a different word or terminology for this mixture but at the end of the 
day you are still contaminating our soil.  These alterations will in turn 
come back to haunt if not us then our future generation without proper safe 
guards in place.”


17. RESOLUTIONS by Township Council and Conservation Authority

Passed unanimously May 6, 2004 by the Council of the Township of Malahide.

"WHEREAS the Corporation of the Township of Malahide takes the health and 
welfare of its inhabitants very seriously;
AND WHEREAS the Corporation of the Township of Malahide, both on behalf of 
and in conjunction with is inhabitants, has fears and concerns that the 
"Sound Sorb" material used to construct the berms at the East Elgin 
Sportsmen's Association property has had, is having, or has the potential to 
have a negative impact upon the health and safety of the inhabitants of, and 
visitors to, the Township of Malahide;
AND WHEREAS the Corporation of the Township of Malahide has already raised 
its concerns with the Ministry of the Environment and has received 
assurances that the Ministry is undertaking further testing of the Sound 
Sorb material in order to gather more comprehensive information;
AND WHEREAS the Corporation of the Township of Malahide wishes to ensure 
that the appropriate provincial government ministries and agencies are aware 
of the existence of the "Sound Sorb" installations within its boundaries and 
of the concerns of the Township and its inhabitants with respect to the 
potential adverse impacts of those "Sound Sorb" installations;
THEREFORE be it resolved that The Corporation of the Township of Malahide 
calls for a moratorium on the use, dumping and/or installation of "Sound 
Sorb" or any other paper sludge or similar product anywhere within its 
municipal boundaries; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that The Corporation of the Township of Malahide 
request the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Health to take 
any and all steps necessary to protect and ensure the health and safety of 
the inhabitants of the Township of Malahide and hereby directs its staff to 
circulate this Resolution to the Minister of Environment, the Exeter Road 
office of the Ministry of the Environment, the Minister of Health, the 
Elgin-St. Thomas Health Unit, the County of Elgin and Steve Peters MPP, 
Elgin-Middlesex-London."


Passed unanimously March 17, 2005 by the Council of the Township of 
Malahide.

That the Ministry of the Environment be requested to follow through with the 
recommendations of the Report of the Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb dated 
January 31, 2005.


Passed unanimously March 17, 2005 by the Catfish Creek Conservation 
Authority.

THAT, the Full Authority endorse the recommendations of the ‘Experts Panel 
Report’ dated January 31, 2005


18.  Premier Environmental Services May 19, 2005
	“PES fully endorses the classification of Sound-Sorb as a “waste” and the 
regulation of its use under the Ontario Waste Management Act as noted in the 
REPS…With respect to Section 4.8 of the REPS, PES agrees that a 
hydrogeological assessment be carried out at all existing Sound-Sorb sites 
and that the work be carried out by a Qualified Person that is completely 
independent of any person or entity in care, custody or control of the 
Sound-Sorb material.  The shallow groundwater at the Oshawa Skeet and Gun 
Club (OSGC) was not adequately characterized and PES would like to see the 
MOE continue with the monitoring program on the existing wells and implement 
a more detailed study of the shallow groundwater aquifer.“


19. Haldimand-Norfolk Acting Medical Officer of Health Dr. Jeff Tschirhart: 
On August 3, 2005 wrote: “Some municipalities have passed by-laws to stop 
the spreading of PFBs on agricultural land, however, Haldimand County does 
not have such a by-law. The by-laws may not be based on actual health risks 
but by the fact that there are no regulations with respect to the use of 
these materials. I support the findings of the Expert Panel to ensure the 
safety of the product that it should be regulated but there is no evidence 
at this point in time to indicate that there are health hazards associated 
with the spread of this material on agricultural land. If the municipality 
entertains the idea of a by-law to restrict its spread, I would support the 
initiative not based on the risk as a health hazard (as that is unknown at 
this time) but rather that it is a waste that should be regulated in its 
application and use as there is the potential for a health/environmental 
hazard.”

20.   December 5, 2005 THE CORPORATION OF HALDIMAND COUNTY


	“THAT with respect to Report PED-GM-08-2005 Re: Paper Fibre Biosolids, 
Nitrosorb and Sound-Sorb dated November 30, 2005; that the Ministry of the 
Environment be requested to expedite its review of Paper Fibre 
Biosolids…THAT further to Report PED-GM-08-2005 RE: Paper Fibre Biosolids, 
Nitrosorb and Sound-Sorb the Corporation of Haldimand County endorses the 
Resolution by The Ontario Federation of Agriculture to urge the Government 
of Ontario to keep waste products destined for further processing and or 
blending, under the regulatory umbrella of the MOE throughout the 
transportation, processing/blending process, storage/stock piling and that 
the final application to farmland occurs with a Certificate of Approval 
(CoA) and under the provisions of the Nutrient Management Act (NMA).”

21. Municipality of ClaringtonMay 1, 2006
Whereas the Experts Panel on Paper Fibre Bio-Solids recommended a number of
initiatives to the Minister of Environment in February 2005 and action on
these recommendations have yet to be taken, and

Whereas Clarington Council supported the recommendations of the Experts
Panel through Resolution #GPA-208-05; and

Whereas the Region, local municipalities and environmental groups have been
pressing the MOE to keep waste destined for further processing or blending
into products such as Sound-Sorb, Nitro-Sorb, etc. under the regulatory
umbrella of the MOE throughout the transportation, processing, storage/stock
piling and final resting site under a certificate of Approval (C of A) and
under the provisions of the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) in the case of
agricultural applications, and

Whereas the Region must lead by example and take a cradle to grave
approach to the compost processing contract,

Now therefore be it resolved that the Municipality of Clarington does not
support the concept of mixing paper-fibre biosolids with compost as
contemplated in the contract with Waste Management of Canada Corp. until the
recommendations of the Experts Panel are implemented by MOE and further that
the Region of Durham and Ministry of Environment be informed of this
resolution and it be circulated to all other local municipalities in Durham
Region for endorsement.

22. Durham MPP Asks Provincial Government To take action on Biosolids May 9, 
2006 Durham MPP John O'Toole today called on the provincial government to 
take action on a Municipality of Clarington resolution concerning the 
control of paper fibre biosolids.