Sludge Watch ==> URGENT: Ontario plans to do away with waste permits for sludge - BAD IDEA

[Maureen Reilly]

Sludgewatch Admin:

Send in your comments to the MOE by January 5th, 2008 (yes, tomorrow)
The province of Ontario is floating the idea of doing away with waste 
permits for sewage sludge and paper sludge spreading (along with some other 
wastes).

This would have a dreadful effect on farm spreading of spreading...because 
the gov't is also trying to sneak in all kinds of relaxed regulations, 
reduced waiting periods, reduced separation distances from wells, and the 
intend to remove most of the public transparency.

Write to Kevin Webster today. You may cut and past the letter below if you 
wish or write comments all your own.  Contact: Kevin.Webster at ontario.ca

For details of the proposal go to:
http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTAxNDMy&statusId=MTUxNjMz&language=en
......................


Kevin Webster
Senior Policy Co-ordinator
Ministry of the Environment
Waste Management Policy Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West
7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario  M4V 1P5

Dear Mr Webster,
Re:	EBR Registry Number 010-1436




Issues with the proposed changes in the regulation of
“Non Agricultural Source Materials”


Overall Problem: Failure to require demonstration of agricultural benefit

NASM regulations are so opaque and unweildy only consultants can cut through 
and understand them.  The province of Ontario should maintain the use of 
Certificate of Approval for the hauling and land application of sewage 
sludge biosolids and paper mill sludges.

NASM that  currently incorporates the Guidelines for the Use of Biosolids 
and Other Wastes on Agricultural Lands in Certificates of Approval for 
biosolids spreading.  Under these permits the proponent  must demonstrate 
agricultural benefit and must demonstrate that the sludge or waste 
ammendment does not pose a risk to the environment or public health before 
it is land applied.  The NASM regulations do not have this requirement.  
This requirement should be written into the NASM requirements. Simply 
limiting some metals and some nutrients and some large particles does not 
ensure that the material has agricultural benefit and does not pose a risk 
to the environment or health.

This requirement should be written into the regs and generators should have 
to provide documentation of benefit and provide funds for a gov’t review of 
the research to demonstrate benefit and environmental/public health safety.  
(refers to sec 10 pg 13)

Haulers and Appliers to be exempted from need for Systems CofA

The Haulers and Appliers of  NASM should continue to require a CofA – 
because of the opportunity to adulterate the NASM between the pick up and 
delivery, and to provide a mechanism to address issues specific to different 
NASM and NASM mixtures.  The CofA allows the public to know who is 
responsible for the material in trucks since the CofA is a public document.

There has been a history of poor behaviour in Ontario by some haulers.  If 
such haulers are allowed back into the NASM spreading business, the NASM 
doesn’t provide adequate enforcement mechanisms to address this type of 
waste transportation problem. (sec 6.2 page 10)

The new “Field Nutrient Management Plan”

The proposed Field Nutrient Management Plan should be removed.   The whole 
idea of the legislation is for farms to be phased into the NMA regulation 
requirements.  To move to a situation where the farm isn’t triggered but 
just some discrete ‘fields’ obviates the whole point the legislation.  It 
was already egregious that farms with high numbers of animal units were 
triggered by the NMA but farms with annualized excrement of hundreds of 
thousands of human beings were not triggered to prepare plans under the NMA. 
  Farmers who are taking NASM on their farms should have to prepare a whole 
farm plan – to harmonize the nutrient use and storage on the farm.  In the 
absence of this – absentee landlords will be turning over their farms to 
deregulated waste materials – applied by deregulated waste haulers/appliers 
and not have a full understanding of how their farm soil amendment practices 
may impact their future farming or land use plans.
There should be no ‘field plans’.  Just farm plans.
(sec 6.1 pag 9)

Section 9.3 Exception to registration

If the Director thinks the use of NASM may have an adverse effect – then the 
Director should have the authority to terminate or write conditions as they 
see into the plans for that property – no matter what category of NASM is 
used.

Indeed why would the MOE/OMAF in this draft allow the Director discretion in 
the least harmful and dangerous ammendments and not allow this discretion 
with the most pathogenic and high metal contamination ammendments?  This is 
a dreadful proposal.


Foreign Objects:

Two percent of the NASM may include foreign objects.  It is totally 
unacceptable to allow foreign objects like glass, metal, plastic onto 
Ontario farmland.  These materials will stay in the soil permanently … and 
can make the land forever unsuitable for some root crops – like potatoes.  
The presence of glass or metal in a potato or similar crop can break teeth 
and cause high liability for the producer and processor of the crop.

Foreign objects should not be allowed in NASM – certainly not 2%

Similarly the limit of 1% plastic has not been effective in stopping 
terrible contamination of the countryside with blowing plastic bags …this 
plastic poses a danger to wildlife like birds and fish and livestock, and 
can cause lowered property values.

Illegal compost – should not be allowed on farmland under NASM
The whole point of composting is to provide a material that is safe to use 
without a waste CofA.  To allow compost with large particle size on farmland 
is to put that farmland at risk permanent impairment of the agricultural 
soil. (sec 11.0 pg 13)

Restrictions on liquid application rate

The proposal is to weaken the provision limiting liquid NASM application 
rates by allowing more liquid per hectare to be applied in the summer 
period.

Already rural wells are being inundated by land applied liquid sludges.  
Tile drains and bedrock, and other local features are not being adequately 
managed to stop the flow of liquid sludges into groundwater and wells and 
surface waters.

The use of liquid NASM should be reviewed against complaints of runoff and 
well contamination and an expert panel should be developed to create best 
management practices that are then written into the regulations.

Best management practices should include a requirement that muncipalities 
were NASM is spread have NASM officers who attend when NASM is applied to 
verify that there is no runoff and that all the requiements are met.  NASM 
generators should provide funds to receiving municipalities to finance these 
positions.  (sec 12.0 pg 14)





13.0 Organic Soils

Organic soils already have an exceedingly high content of organic matter – 
so there should be no application of NASM – except lime materials if it is 
needed to raise pH.
No other application of NASM should be permitted.

14.0 Soil Phosphorus

There should be no addition of NASM to soils that are at or exceed 60 
milligrams of available phosphorus.

PHOSPHORUS ISSUE – The formula for the addition of phosphorus under NMA is 
loading up Ontario soils with phosphorus…which is the opposite of its intent 
when first promulgated.

Needs an agronomic review by a speciality panel…I recommend Dr Les Evans 
from U of Guelph

15.0	Soil pH

There should be no application of NASM where the soil pH is less than 6 – 
since these soils can release toxic metals into the crop and into the 
environment.   Any liming agents that are also NASM should be free of 
organic matter if they are applied to organic soils.

16.0	Minimum beneficial quality requirement

This wording is inadequate to demonstrate agricultural benefit.  Just 
because a material has some nutrient does not provide assurance that there 
is no environment/health risk or detriment.  NASM should meet the obligation 
to demonstrate benefit and absence of health or environmental harm.

17.0

Criteria for metals –
Ontario proposed – originally – to phase out the land application of 
materials that that had the higher levels of metals.  Instead of phasing out 
the land application of those materials – this proposal enshrines these high 
heavy metals sludges and NASMs in the new regulatory framework – with NO 
provision for phase out.

There is no table to explain the sampling methods or test methodologies 
required.
There should be no averaging of test results…all NASMs should be tested 
directly before land application…so that the tests include the polymers and 
thickeners used in the final stages of NASM preparation.

The WEAO report on biosolids conducted a few years ago pointed to some 
metals of concern in Ontario that are not currently regulated in sludges – 
silver, thallium, tin etc.
There are also other contaminants of concern in Ontario NASMs – like NP and 
NPE, dioxins and furans, pharmaceuticals, hormones – and standards should be 
developed for the these substances in NASMs starting with immediate 
inclusion of the problematic additional metals.   Screening for a wide range 
of toxins or problematic compounds should be part of the initial testing 
work up for NASM – demonstrated agricultural benefi and lack of harm.

18, Criteria for Pathogens

Recent research conducted for the Water Environment Research Foundation in 
the USA has demonstrated that many sewage sludges that are anaerobically 
digested and centrifuge dewatered are subject to an extraordinary rate of 
pathogen regrowth and reactivation.  There is a concern that anaerobic 
digestion may not be killing pathogens and other bacteria – but merely 
putting them in a dormant state (viable non culturable).

Testing on NASM must include tests for this kind of regrowth.  Also NASMs 
may not have consistent levels of pathogens. Some may be seasonal – or be 
based on inputs from slaughterhouses or rendering plants etc.  Provisions 
need to include regular and routine testing to detect this kind of 
variability.


Also, how do you know that a Category 1 material is really a Category 1 
material if you don’t require testing?  All the materials need to be tested 
and the tests reported to the MOE to demonstrate that they are the Category 
they claim to be.

18.1

Category  3 and 4 NASM cannot rely on the sewage treatment plant to 
guarantee acceptable pathogen reduction.  The NASM needs to be tested to 
determine the levels of pathogens.

Enteric viruses need to be included in the required testing protocols and 
standards.


Thanks

Maureen Reilly
Sludge Watch












19.1 Setbacks from Surface water  - public posting of farm plan at municipal 
offices

Inadequate set backs – 3 meters is inadequate as a set back to surface water
There should be a 20 meter set back

The mapping of the site should be posted in the community municipal council 
office so that residents can review all the setbacks and features and 
comment on the proposed application.  Residents may know more about 
intermittent streams, slope, bedrock, oil wells, water wells, groundwater 
conditions and tile drains than the property owner.


19.2 Setbacks from wells

All NASM in Category 3 and 4 should stay back a minimum 90 meters from all 
wells (reg 347)

19.3 Depth to bedrock

There should be no land application of CP2 and CM2 where the depth to 
bedrock is less than 90 meters.

Table 5 - Risk of potential groundwater contamination

Cracked Karst or Cracked limestone sub soil

There is a problem with land application of biosolids on soils that allow 
rapid movement of sludges into the soil.  There is far more movement 
horizontally and vertically of biosolids materials.  Clay soils can also 
allow even more rapid movement down into groundwater than sandy soils due to 
root whole, pop ups, and worm holes.  Research done in Ottawa and elsewhere 
in Southern Ontario refutes the risk assumptions in Table 5

There should be restrictions on sludge spreading on these areas

Table 6 – Application standards based on risk level

These restrictions are inadequate to be protective since the groundwater 
contamination potential table is inaccurate and inadequate.  Since 
previously, the maximum 5 year application rate of sewage sludge was 8 dry 
tonnes per hectare per 5 years – to allow 18 dry tonnes per hectare per 24 
hours in an area of high groundwater contamination risk is a severe 
weakening of the protections that were previously in place.

19.5 Pre-harvest grazing and crop harvesting

The waiting periods are inadequate for both crop grazing and harvesting.  
Pathogens are not the only issue.  There is also particle size, surfactants, 
endocrine disruptors, PCBs, PBDE,  etc.
The US requires a 38 month waiting period for sludge amended soils 
harvesting root crops.  Ontario’s waiting periods need to be scientifically 
reviewed.



19.6	Winter Application

There should be no winter application of NASM.  There is no crop growing in 
the winter to take up the nutrient – so the nutrient will evaporate into the 
air (greenhouse gases) and will run off into surface water in the spring.

Snow covered and frozen land should not be worked….you can’t inject into 
frozen ground and you can’t incorporate.  The soil is frozen.  The risk of 
contamination at the time of spreading or at the next thaw is very high.  
Soil compaction is also an issue.
There should be no winter application of NASM

20.1  Odour


Odour is a form of trespass.
Who makes the odour determination?  There needs to be a provincial odour 
panel

There should be an odour tribunal in the case of complaints.


21.1 Maximum application rate

The calculation for phosphorus allows for annually 390 kg phosphorus per 
hectare more than the crop removes.  It is rapidly pushing up the phosphorus 
levels in Ontario soils.
Ontario soils are already generally well furnished with phosphorus.  This 
excessive phosphorus is putting surface water at risk from excess nutrient 
and algae blooms…especially from materials that move through tile drains 
into surface water and soils that was washed into water in rain and snow 
melt events.


Table 8

There is no scientific justification for the maximum allowable metal 
concentrations in Table 8.  Doubling the maximum amounts of metals that are 
naturally occurring in Ontario soils is not  protective of crop or soil 
quality  - and may be impacting wildlife and body burden of certain toxic 
metals.

There should be a scientific review of allowing soils to reach these levels 
of metals.

Sodium

Salting the fields is the path to destruction of farm soil productivity.  It 
is historically the reason for the end of agricultural civilizations around 
the world.  Allowing NASMs- with their higher levels of salts – to be land 
applied can be having negative consequences to the sustainability of Ontario 
agriculture.  Soil trends and risks need to be systematically reviewed 
before these permissive levels of salting are allowed.

Boron

Boron can be toxic in soils. Instead of a blanket permission to add up to 1 
kg of boron – the boron levels should be assessed…ALL sources of boron 
evaluated – and a determination of whether NASM will be allowed should 
depend on whether protective
boron levels are being exceeded.

24.0 Record Keeping

Record keeping should be permanent and in storage at MOE offices. NASM 
records should be public records available on request or through FOI

25.0 Storage

There should be no field storage of NASM.

Additional Recommendations

All use of NASM on agricultural lands should be reviewed by the local 
Medical Officer of Health – who may make additional conditions or 
requirements
-All such requirements and conditions should be made public

The proposed Nutrient Management Plans and Strategies should be publicly 
available at the municipal offices for public inspection or copying

There should be field posting requirements for all pathogenic NASMs.  All 
fields spread with pathogenic NASMs should have fencing to keep out people 
and animals for one year following application.

Signage – the fields proposed to be spread with pathogenic sludges should 
have a large sign posted two months before application and for one year 
after application.

All municipalities in which NASMs are spread should have a municipal 
inspector to review the NMP and NM Strategies for compliance and they should 
attend all NASM spreading events.  Their salary should be provided by the 
generators of NASMs.




Farmers who accept NASM on their farmlands should be indemnified by the 
generator and hauler.

Review and Appeal provisions:

The NMA should have a review and appeal process.  Since the people who write 
up the Nutrient Management Plan may not be aware of all the features of the 
landscape and history of landuse (abandoned wells, groundwater

Sensitive receptors


There needs to be a review and complaint mechanism to deal with problems 
related to land application –  health problems, odour, and environmental 
issues.