Sludge Watch ==> Ontario - Report on Paper Fibre Biosolids - Mike Manchester

[Maureen Reilly]

Report on Paper Fibre Biosolids - Prepared by Ward 1 councillor Mike 
Manchester

Date: 2008-01-24
Background and Historical Information



Atlantic Packaging operates paper recycling plants in Scarborough and 
Whitby.
The paper for recycling is sourced primarily from the US, the balance 
locally.
Approximately 700 tonnes wet weight of paper mill sludge (waste) is 
generated daily.
Paper sludge has been shown to contain e-coli, fecal coliform. Contaminants 
of potential concern include total petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs, lead. 
Acrylamide polymer (a known animal carcinogen), benzo[a]pyrene, MEK and 
phenol.
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) reasoned in 1999 that paper sludge was 
municipal waste as defined in the Waste Management Regulation, despite its 
being produced by an industrial process.


Paper Fibre Biosolids – Ontario Timeline

1991 – 1998
Spreading of paper sludge called Paper Fibre Biosolids (PFBs) on 
Agricultural land.
MOE issued a provisional Certificate of Approval (CofA) for Durham Region 
with conditions for soil testing, groundwater monitoring, application rates, 
site restrictions, etc.
Between 1994 and 1998 a discredited laboratory was used for testing.
Late 1990’s public pressure on MOE to stop spreading on agricultural land 
and MOE study showing no benefit results in CofA not being renewed in 2001.

1999
Sound-Sorb trademarked – a mixture of PFBs (70%) and soil used to 
construct berms at gun clubs.
As a ‘product’ Sound-Sorb is exempt from Ontario’s waste management 
regulations.
“Product’ never tested for long range of contaminants, no long term 
testing on effects to groundwater

2000
MOE tests PFBs stored in Clarington pit.  Release flawed report claiming no 
exceedences.  MOE reissues report outlining exceedences found year later
MNR orders PFBs to be removed from pit

2001
Association of Public Health Agencies passes motion supporting tighter 
regulation of PFB disposal.
Region of Durham tests at Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club (OSGC) Sound-Sorb berm 
finds exceedences in surface water.

2002
MOE installed test wells at OSGC, Harmony Road Leaf and Yard Waste Compost 
Facility and the aggregate pit in Clarington.
Bioaerosol Study Committee established, Clarington represented

2003
Results from Aylmer Sound-Sorb berm released showing TPH exceedences 13 X 
contaminated site guidelines
MOE awards contract for a Site Specific Risk Assessment of the OSGC 
Sound-Sorb berm to examine high levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons, 
bacteria, and acrylamide Monomer.
Groundwater results released.  Benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene 
and benzo(a)pyrene in excess of health-based criteria.
PTR sends in EBR Application to review policy

2005
Panel of independent Scientific Experts established by MOE with a mandate to 
study the Sound-Sorb issue and make recommendations.  The report was 
released on January 31, 2005.

2006 - 2007
No action taken on Experts Panel recommendations despite Health, 
Conservation, Agricultural association, trade union and Municipal 
resolutions urging action.
No further groundwater test results released (although MOE reports tests 
have been performed).
Site Specific Risk Assessment study (on OSGC Sound-Sorb berm) completed, but 
not released.
In Pelham, numerous samples of contaminated run-off have been taken by MOE, 
which their surface water experts believe could cause off-site impacts and 
adversely effect the aquatic environment.
In January 2006 the Expert Panel Report on “Water Well Sustainability in 
Ontario” clearly stated that “Legislative exemptions (i.e. to the EPA) 
should be given only after extensive studies/field trials have been 
conducted. Land based disposal of products with no benefit to the land 
should be prohibited”.
September 2007 the Township of Brock passes a motion requesting the MOE 
adhere to the recommendations of its own panel of experts to have Paper 
Fibre Biosolids put back under the authoritative control of a Certificate of 
Approval. (Over 40 Ontario Municipalities support this motion).
December 2007 the Township of Brock passes a motion to advise the MOE and 
OMAFRA of our interest and concern with a proposal for changes to the 
regulatory framework for None-Agricultural Source Material (NASM), changes 
that would contradict the “Panel of Experts” recommendations for control 
of Paper Fibre Biosolids.


Perspectives on the Issue

The Scientific Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb
The panel released its report on January 31, 2005. Among its conclusions 
were the following:

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

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.
In June 2006 the Environment Commissioner went on to say that 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.  It’s a mystery to 
me why the (Environment) ministry doesn’t regulate (Sound-Sorb) as it does 
other industrial wastes.”

The Association of Local Public Health Associations passed a resolution 
"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 2006, 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.

Conservation Ontario (the association of Ontario conservation authorities) 
passed a resolution urging “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).

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture takes the position "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)."

The Sierra Legal Foundation 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"

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

The Region of Durham, on the recommendation of the health department, 
endorsed the OFA resolution in the spring of 2006.


In Conclusion:

The concerns expressed by the Expert Panel on Sound-Sorb aside, the current 
practice constitutes land application of a waste without proven benefit, in 
direct conflict with the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Water Well 
Sustainability in Ontario. like Sound-sorb, Nitro-Sorb (believed to be PFB 
mixed with about 10% compost) used as a ‘soil conditioner’ directly on 
crop land, is an exempt ‘product’ and is not subject to MOE control. 
Importantly, “Under the regulatory exemption the material could legally 
contain municipal, hazardous or liquid industrial waste.”

Although agreements between the producers and the ministry may be perceived 
as progress (by the ministry) serious concerns remain unaddressed. - There 
is no requirement for the paper companies to compost the PFB (a KEY 
recommendation). - 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. That said, the ministry has indicated Atlantic Packaging has indeed 
conducted groundwater testing. However, according to a letter from the 
Minister date April 16, 2007, no results from these tests have yet been 
provided to the MOE. We, therefore, submit that the MOE’s decision to 
exempt paper sludge is not based upon a sound interpretation of the 
governing regulatory provisions.

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.