Sludge Watch ==> Ontario MOE refuses to review Skip Ambrose Compost Operation

[Maureen Reilly]

Sludgewatch Admin:

This compost site makes a joke out of the Oak Ridges protection legislation.

In Ontario almost all composting operations have a waste permit  called a 
Certificate of Approval (CofA) that sets out its obligations to protect air, 
soil, water, and compost quality.  A few years ago municipal governments 
were given the opportunity to go to a 'permit by rule' kind of management 
system under Reg 101.

The only private compost company in Ontario that has been allowed to operate 
without a Certificate of Approval is the 'leaf and yard waste' composting 
site belonging to Harvey (Skip) Ambrose on Harmony Road in Oshawa.  The 
operation sits on sensitive protected lands on the Oak Ridges Morraine.  
There are no leachate controls, no liners, no catchment ponds, and the site 
received paper sludge (not allowed at leaf and yard waste operations) 
without any enforcement.
There have been two huge fires at the site in recent months that burned on 
for weeks.

Despite the fact that the Harmony Road operation sends out compost that is 
not compliant with the Ontario compost guidelines there is never any 
enforcement.  The compost from this site are mixed with papermill sludge to 
make mixtures that are called 'Sound-Sorb' and 'Nitro-Sorb' but since they 
are not sold to anyone they are not regulated as products federally.  No 
provincial regulation - no federal regulation.
No regulation.

And the Ministry - complicit in the contamination at this site and from this 
site -  refuses to conduct a review.   Ontario's normal waste management 
requirements just never seem to appy to these compost and paper sludge 
operations.

Here is the report from the Ontario Environmental Commissioner's office.

ECO Contact information
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
1075 Bay Street, Suite 605
Toronto, ON M5S 2B1
Canada

Tel: 416-325-3377
Toll-Free: 1-800-701-6454
Fax: 416-325-3370
E-mail: inquiry at eco.on.ca

Resource Centre: 416-325-0363

Miller, Gord
Commissioner


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





Review of Application R2005014

Review of O. Reg. 101/94 regarding Large Leaf and Yard Composting Operations 
in Sensitive
Ecosystems
(Review Denied by MOE)


Background/Summary of Issues

The applicants requested a review of Ontario Regulation 101/94 (Recycling 
and Composting of Municipal Waste) under the Environmental Protection Act 
(EPA).   The request centers on the applicants’ concern that  large  
commercial  leaf  and  yard  waste  composting  facilities  can  be  
established  without  any assessment of the potential for environmental 
impact because the regulation exempts these facilities from sections 9, 27, 
40 and 41 of the EPA as long as there is a 100 metre setback from the site 
boundaries and/or any lake, river, pond, stream, reservoir, spring or well.  
The applicants argue that O. Reg. 101/94 does not set criteria for the type 
of terrain, or require any hydrological or groundwater impact assessment
in order for a leaf and yard waste composting site to be exempt from the 
above-referenced sections of the
EPA.

The applicants use the Harmony Road leaf and yard waste composting operation 
in Oshawa to illustrate their concerns about O. Reg. 101/940.   They say the 
site is located adjacent to an area designated as one of high aquifer 
vulnerability on the crest of the Oak Ridges Moraine, and provide monitoring 
data that suggest  contamination  has  already  occurred  as  a  result  of  
this  operation.   They  argue  that  evidence exists indicating ‘the real 
possibility of groundwater contamination’ but unfortunately this has not 
resulted
in more stringent controls because such requirements do not exist under O. 
Reg. 101/94.




126

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario	2006/2007 ANNUAL REPORT SUPPLEMENT


Ministry Response

The Ministry denied this request for a review, indicating that it disagrees 
with the applicants’ assertion that
O. Reg. 101/94 is not adequate to protect surface and groundwater at leaf 
and yard waste composting sites. Instead, MOE explained that, while O. Reg. 
101/94 exempts specific recycling sites such as leaf and  yard  waste  
composting  sites  from  sections  9,  27,  40  and  41  of  the  EPA,  the  
regulation  does  not relieve a proponent from addressing concerns related 
to surface and groundwater impacts as required under the Ontario Water 
Resources Act.

In  its  response  the  Ministry  added  that,  in  lieu  of  the  EPA  
requirements  that  apply  to  most  waste management  facilities,  O.  Reg. 
  101/94  imposes  a  host  of  other  requirements  including  the  100  
metre setback, emergency response plans, processing requirements and 
criteria for use of the final compost product.

The  Ministry  also  explained  that  a  requirement  exists  for  leaf  and 
  yard  waste  composting  facilities  to obtain a certificate of approval 
under section 53 of the OWRA if leachate or surface runoff is collected, 
transmitted or treated and discharged to a storm sewer, watercourse, or onto 
the surface of the ground
for the purpose of disposal.  The certificate of approval would set out the 
criteria for the discharge of this leachate and/or runoff.

In addition, MOE explained that section 5.2 of ‘A Guide to Approvals for 
Recycling Sites, Leaf and Yard
Waste Composting Sites and Compost Use’  (referred to hereafter as the MOE 
Guide) provides direction
for the on-site management of water at these sites.  MOE noted that the 
document sets out site selection criteria   for   the   management   of   
leachate   and   runoff   including  separation  distances,  grading  and 
impermeable bases for composting pads.  Further, the MOE Guide recommends 
that site owners should
undertake a hydrogeological or soils study if the conditions of their site 
are unknown.

However, the MOE response to the application for review made no reference to 
the Harmony Road leaf and yard waste composting site and whether any of the 
above measures had been taken at the site to address the concerns raised by 
the applicants.

Additional Information

Due to MOE’s lack of comment on the Harmony Road composting site, an effort 
was made by the ECO to obtain some basic information about the site.  More 
specifically, the ECO attempted to gather some basic information  about  how 
  the  site  was  affected  by  the  requirements  set  out  in  O.  Reg.  
101/94  and  the relevant recommendations found in the MOE Guide.

MOE  staff  at  the  York  Durham  District  office  who  were  familiar  
with  the  Harmony  Road  site  were contacted and asked several questions:

1.   Does a site plan exist for this facility?  Does a vicinity map exist 
for this facility?

These plans are required for a leaf and yard waste composting facility under 
O. Reg. 101/94.  The MOE Guide indicates that a vicinity map “..should show 
information such as prominent landmarks, waterways, transportation routes 
and neighbouring land uses.”  MOE staff went on to state that a site plan 
“…should identify  each  major  physical  feature  of  the  site  in  
relation  to  other  features.”   Further,  O.  Reg.  101/94
“requires that site plans must show all services (electrical, water, gas), 
buildings, processing units, roads, loading areas, unloading areas and 
storage areas.“

MOE provided the ECO with three maps, one of which satisfied the basic 
requirements of a vicinity map and none of which satisfied the regulatory 
requirements for a site plan map.   Aerial photographs of the site  in  
combination  with  an  MOE  Environmental  Features  map  provided  by  the  
applicants  appear  to confirm  the  presence  of  a  creek  located  
approximately  40  metres  from   compost  piles  on  the  site,  in 
apparent  contravention  of  the  100-metre  setback  requirement  that  
exempts  theses  sites  from  EPA requirements for waste management 
facilities contained in Regulation 347, R.R.O. 1990.



127

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario	2006/2007 ANNUAL REPORT SUPPLEMENT




In August 2007, MOE provided additional information about the site after 
reviewing the ECO draft Annual
Report.  The ECO reviewed preliminary information provided by the ministry; 
however, the company’s site plan was not included in the attachment.   MOE 
explained that this was “an oversight” and a copy was provided to the ECO in 
August 2007.

In the summer of 2007, MOE staff further investigated the site and staff 
have confirmed that the creek referred to in the ECO draft Report is a 
swale, in a low lying area, where storm water may channel during
a significant storm event.   Based on field measurements by ministry staff, 
the areas of compost storage are  at  least  100  metres  away  from  the  
swale.   Ministry  staff  have  not  observed  a  consistent  flow  of 
surface water in this area that would indicate the presence of a creek.   
However, as a precaution, the
company moved sections of several compost rows farther away from this low 
lying area.   The company
periodically re-grades in this area to limit ponding.

2.   What measures are in place for the management of any leachate generated 
from the composting operation at this site?

In response to this question, the York-Durham District Manager for MOE 
indicated to ECO staff that the Harmony Road composting site has no leachate 
collection or storm water management system.   MOE explained that district 
staff have not observed any significant generation of leachate or storm 
water on the site.  The explanation for this lack of leachate or storm 
water, according to MOE staff, rests with the fact that “(T)he site is 
situated on sandy soils – most precipitation soaks into the soils and the 
leaf and yard waste itself is typically not damp enough to generate any 
significant moisture or leachate.

The  MOE  Guide  includes  a  section  that  addresses  the  issue  of  
on-site  water  management.    In  this section, the MOE Guide states the 
following:

When selecting a composting site, the management of leachate and runoff 
should be considered. On-site water, generated as leachate from the compost 
mass or resulting from precipitation runoff must be managed to prevent 
contamination of surface and ground waters and to prevent odours arising 
from ponds.  In most situations, contamination can be avoided by maintaining 
the required distance from surface waters, wells, and other areas of 
concern, and by ensuring that the site is properly graded.

The MOE Guide also explains the following:

Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act requires a Certificate of 
Approval in cases where runoff  or  leachate  is  discharged  to  a  
receiving  body  of  water  or  the  ground.	To  obtain  a certificate, a 
sampling and testing program may be required and the effluent may have to 
receive some degree of treatment before discharge.

Further:

To eliminate the need for a Certificate of Approval under the Ontario Water 
Resources Act, site design  should  include  provisions  to  ensure  that  
leachate  and  runoff  are  contained.	These provisions may include grading, 
berms and collection ditches and ponds.  By locating the site on
a naturally impermeable base, or by constructing an impermeable base, any 
potential impacts on ground water from leachate and runoff can be reduced.   
The owner of the site should consider doing a hydrogeological or soils study 
if site conditions are unknown.

In August 2007, MOE provided further comment on these issues.  MOE explained 
that section 4.4 of the Compost  Guideline  is  meant  to  provide  general  
direction  only  and  is  not  intended  to  replace  the provisions  of  
the  OWRA.    There  is  no  evidence  of  concerns  with  respect  to  
leachate  generation  or discharges at the site.   If conditions at the site 
change and controls for surface water and leachate are considered by the MOE 
to be necessary, the ministry will require the operator to apply for and 
receive approval under section 53 of the OWRA.



128

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario	2006/2007 ANNUAL REPORT SUPPLEMENT




ECO Comment

The ECO concurs with MOE’s conclusion that there is no need to review O. 
Reg. 101/94.  Requirements
in the regulation in combination with recommendations in the accompanying 
MOE Guide are designed to ensure that leaf and yard waste composting sites 
do not impose any harm to the environment within the boundaries of and 
beyond a facility site.

However, regulations are only effective if they are enforced and guidelines 
need to be followed.	The applicants raised very specific concerns about one 
operating leaf and yard waste composting site.  While their application for 
review zeros in on O. Reg. 101/94 and what they believe are the shortcomings 
of this regulation,  they  also  raise  significant  concerns  about  
operating  compost  sites  within  a  sensitive ecosystem. Despite concerns 
raised by the  applicants about the site, MOE made no comment in its formal 
response to the application for review regarding the status of the Harmony 
Road leaf and yard waste composting site.    It is surprising to the ECO 
that MOE would not have moved from explaining the purpose of the regulation 
and associated MOE Guide to using the Harmony Road site as an illustrative 
example of how the regulation and MOE Guide are applied in order to allay 
the concerns raised by the applicants.   In our draft Report, the ECO urged 
MOE to further investigate the site and ensure that the operation  did  not  
pose  a  risk  to  the  environment. In  response,  MOE  agreed  to  
undertake  further investigations of the site in the summer of 2007.  The 
ECO commends MOE for undertaking this further work.