TO: The Committee on General Government. Regarding the proposed
Nutrient Management Act, Bill 81.
Today we are submitting the following in two parts. The second is our
submission from 1st reading consultation last September, that
accompanied our public presentation in Peterborough. The first part is
an updated critique that includes relevant new information. Please
forward both to all members of the Committee.
May 27,2002
INTRODUCTION
To begin with, we would like to voice our extreme frustration with the
very brief period to respond. The announcement did not appear on the
Parliamentary Channel until last Friday morning. This government
appears to be in a real hurry to ram this inadequate draft bill through
3rd reading. An "enabling" legislation devoid of its regulations and
standards. Of course the Government has produced its usual spin by
issuing a press release on April 22, stating it is "expediting its
consultation with stakeholders." As we have noted in our Sept./01
report, these stakeholders will definitely include the agribusiness
community, but citizens' groups and other NGOs will assuredly be
excluded. The government will call this public consultation. We are
also extremely disappointed that the 1st reading Committee rejected
every one of the Oppositon parties' amendments, including one that
would have put a notice on the EBR registry, for public input into the
regulations and standards. We strongly suggest you reconsider them,
especially this last idea.
Also, as mentioned in our Sept./01 report, we are absolutely against
the proposed Sections 55 and 56 of the draft, which would open these
practices and related services to privatization and the abrogation of
responsibility by the Government for liabilty in case of contamination.
As well, the section(60) that says this Act would supersede any
municipal by-laws is quite simply undemocratic.
COMMENTS
Relevant research and information has continued to accumulate since our
last report, that further reveals the dangers of field spreading of any
of these so-called "biosolids."
* On May 8/02, in Ottawa, the City Council voted to stop spreading
Ottawa's sewage sludge on agricultural lands. Perhaps the most alarming
development that swayed the vote was research conducted by Cornell
University examining sludge spread fields in the U.S. and Ontario. This
study has discovered that significant amounts of the heavy metals known
to have been added in the sludge have vanished from the plough depth of
fields.
* Recently, the Medical Officer of Health (MOH) for British Columbia
commissioned a report on chemical exposure when recycling sewage
biosolids on agricultural land. It concludes that there may be dioxin-
related risks to human health from the pasturing of animals on sludge
spread fields or from the uptake of dioxins by some plants,
particularly the cucumber family.
(www.soeh.ubc.ca/research/Report%202002/Biosolids.pdf)
* New research has been published by the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science on the toxic effects of PBDEs, brominated fire retardants found
in sludge. Levels bioaccumulated in fish were 10-100 times higher than
levels common in Europe.
* Numerous reports are appearing that document the sometimes fatal
effects of spreading practices on human health. For example, in
Greenland, New Hampshire, a number of residents fell ill after exposure
to sludge spread by Synagro Technologies, one of the largest U.S.
sludge disposers. When 26 year-old Shayne Conner died of a Staph.
infection, his family filed suit and the company settled out of court.
Another Synagro story comes from Waterford, Virginia, where residents
subjected to sludge spreading are completing a study to document cases
of: pneumonia, asthma, acute respiratory trauma, choking mucous,
nosebleeds, eye and nostril sores, migraine headaches, and eye
infections. In Pennsylvania, two children have died of Staph.
infections after being exposed to sewage sludge. "Solidwaste" magazine,
in its recent issue,(www.solidwastemag.com Click on "Posted
Documents")features a report by the MOH for Haliburton/Kawartha on a 10
month-old girl suffering extreme respiratory difficulties after
exposure to airborne dried sludge. In Picton(Prince Edward County), a
man named Brian Marshall was featured in a local newspaper article
about his severe chronic asthma. It was a direct result of working for
an Ottawa based company, loading sludge onto trucks. Says Marshall,"I
used to think it was OK to put this on farmer's fields. I don't think
so anymore. I think it'll make everybody sick."
* On March 28/02, the U.S. Inspector General's office released a report
stating, "The EPA cannot assure the public that current land
application practices(of sewage sludge)are protective of human health."
Similarly, as mentioned in our first report below, the Canadian
Infectious Diseases Society has called for a moratorium on sludge
spreading in Canada until research on health safety is conclusive. As
well, in June, 2001 a decision in Hudson, Quebec by the Supreme Court
of Canada, banned pesticides for cosmetic lawn/garden use. The justices
in this case upheld the "precautionary principle", a concept in
international laws that says, instead of assuming a potential
contaminant is safe until people fall sick from it, public officials
have a duty to assume risk until safety is proved.
* The report last fall by Ontario's Enviromental Commissioner has
several pages criticizing the current government's lack of
responsibility around the spreading of biosolids and raw septage. The
spreading of raw septage should be immediately discontinued, as we
should not extend the ticking time bomb another 5 years for phaseout,
as the draft Bill 81 suggests.
* We welcome the many good recommendations of Judge O'Connor's recently
released 2nd part of the Walkerton Inquiry report. He calls on the
province to regulate large farms(i.e. ILOs) and farms in sensitive
areas, with the Ministry of Environment, not the Agriculture ministry,
taking a leading role. This of course must be augmented by a grossly
gutted MOE being revitalized by new hiring and sufficient budget.
But these recommendations, nor the draft Bill 81, fail to address the
biggest gaping loophole in the scenario--the fact that livestock manure
and other farm operation wastes have exemptions, that no other sector
enjoys, from the Environmental Protection Act, as long as "normal farm
practices" are observed. We feel this is a recipe for another disaster.
* In March/02, Tom Spears of the Ottawa Citizen obtained a 590 page
internal document from Agriculture Canada. It concludes that industrial
scale farms are causing air and water pollution and posing a
significant health hazard to people working on them. The documents show
these huge operations have saturated soils and streams with chemicals
found in manure. The concentrated manure fumes have been found to cause
asthma, bronchitis, depression and other health problems in farmers.
* Information on the hazards of paper mill sludge, especially for use
in gun club berms, is appearing rapidly in places like Oshawa area,
Orillia, Madoc, etc. A good example of this in local media is by Tim
Foran,at:
www.durhamregion.com/dr/regions/durham/v-printdurham/story/329392p-431410c.html.
* Problems continue to emerge around the preparation, storage and sales
of sludge pellets as commercial fertilizer. Pellets from a sewage
treatment plant in Toronto have been reviewed and taken off the market
by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, who determined that the pellets
did not meet the requirements of the federal Fertilizer Act. Also,
pellets in storage have been shown to spontaneously combust.
* New literature is also rapidly appearing that suggests common sense,
alternative approaches to the spreading of "biosolids" on agricultural
or any other lands. In the short term, immediate disposal options cited
for consideration by our local Public Works department after
consultation with MOE officials are: temporary storage, dewatering or
drying, disposal at a sanitary landfill, disposal as a hazardous waste,
or the introduction of the sludge into the operation of a larger
wastewater sewage plant. All would require Certificates of Approval. In
the long term, there are several tried and positively proven innovative
technologies and strategies, including: "enhanced anaerobic
digestion"(for non-recyclable municipal solid wastes),"living
machines"(enclosed biological sewage treatment facilities), constructed
wetlands(for municipal sewage and farm wastes), liquid manure
composting systems, zero waste designs, composting toilets and advanced
bio-filtration systems. These latter concepts will be the subject of an
international conference called "Ecofluency", facilitated by our group
and other regional organizations, for April, 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
***PLEASE NOTE: THE "EXHIBITS" REFERRED TO IN THE REPORT ARE AVAILABLE
AT OUR WEBSITE: www.safewatergroup.org Click on "What's New", then
choose month in "Library"
The Safe Water Group
Prince Edward County, Ontario
September, 2001
POSITION PAPER
To: Members of the Committee on Justice and Social Policy. Regarding
the proposed Nutrient Management Act, Bill 81.
INTRODUCTION:
The Safe Water Group of Prince Edward County (SWG) is a growing
association of concerned citizens who have been organizing around
issues regarding the safety, sustainability and delivery of water in
our community and the province. Through independent research and public
education, we have been focusing on such things as: the dangers of
sludge spreading, the impacts of intensive livestock operations, sewage
treatment alternatives, and the retention of publicly-owned and
operated water services. We feel that public discussion, access to
information and input into decision-making are sorely lacking in these
times of deregulation and amalgamation. The tragedy of Walkerton has
exposed the vulnerable underbelly of irresponsibility in areas of
environmental protection and public health. It is therefore paramount
that people representing the interests of local citizens be invited
into decision-making processes as full stakeholders. To date, this has
not been the case and as such is a fundamental impediment to any
democratic establishment of binding law.
Citizens province-wide are demanding regulations that are
credible, meaningful and enforceable and this will never be
accomplished without full public participation. We are thankful for the
opportunity to address this committee, but recognize and hope you
concur, that fifteen to twenty minutes barely scratches the surface of
what we feel we deserve as consultation and input. We are also dismayed
that the actual regulations and standards are not available presently,
nor will they be debated in the Legislature.
Regarding the proposed Bill 81, we have been asked to comment on a
very sketchy outline that appears to give vague but absolute authority
to "the Minister", and that this would ultimately supersede municipal
by-laws. The actual regulations and standards are not included in this
discussion paper that attempts to provide enablement for defining
authority over five different waste products presently being used as
fertilizers. Our research has revealed that all of these wastes may
contain deadly combinations of pathogens, heavy metals, highly toxic
industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals and noxious gases. There have
been numerous reports of a highly malodorous stench accompanying
spreading practices.
While we support the intention of the province to phase out the
use of septage on agricultural land, we are also fundamentally against
the land application of sewage or paper mill sludge or any other
industrial wastes. As other groups concerned with the proliferation of
intensive livestock operations are strongly recommending, we urge
stringent, enforceable, accountable manure management laws, especially
regarding use as "organic soil conditioning". Commercial fertilizers
are presently authorized under the federal Fertilizer Act. Our research
has revealed many difficulties and loopholes with sales, testing,
storage and toxicity of these commercial products.
We would like to share with you our comments on the proposed bill
as to: toxic risks; authority and jurisdiction; enforceability; public
participation; liability and alternatives to spreading. At the same
time, we would like to make it clear what we feel the Province's main
priority should be. That is, the overuse, the runoff, the contaminant
addition of these "soil conditioners" into surface and groundwater,
soil and air. As we see it, it is not the nutrients, per se, that the
Province should be managing, but the contaminants contained therein. It
is therefore dangerous to focus almost exclusively on nutrient
management at the dire expense of focussing on contaminant use.
Clearly, the "one size-fits-all" attempt at a "level playing-field"
framework endorsed by agribusiness advocates is a potential recipe for
disaster. More appropriate is an "Agricultural/Industrial Contaminant
Control Act", if we truly care about the health and safety of our
watersheds and the life they support.
FREE FERTILIZER FOR FARMS, OR INDUSTRIAL & HUMAN WASTE DUMPS?
It is a growing trend in residual waste management to spread
industrial waste and/or sewage sludge on agricultural land. Disposal is
becoming more costly and inconvenient due to stricter pollution
controls, increasing scarcity of available sites and demonstrated
health dangers with incineration. This has resulted in our Environment
and Agriculture ministries actively encouraging farmers to welcome
dumping of potentially hazardous wastes on their fields. We feel this
is at odds with ministry mandates and may contribute to liabilities
being borne by municipalities and/or farmers.
While human waste can be good fertilizer when properly treated in
advance, modern municipal sewage also contains deadly industrial toxins
as well as dangerous disease organisms. In addition to heavy metals
such as cadmium, arsenic, lead, mercury and copper, excessive amounts
of e-coli, total coliforms, salmonella and deadly parasites such as
cryptosporidium and highly toxic dioxins, furans and PCBs are of grave
concern(See accompanying exhibits-"Health Aspects As Related To Manure
and Biosolids",E & A Environmental Consultants, plus "The Environmental
and Health Risks of Sludge", M. Reilly). When these materials are
composted or pelletized, the concentration levels of contaminants
increase greatly. It is therefore crucial that all sources of
contaminants be addressed in the legislation.
A 100 acre farm would potentially be spread with not only the
human waste of about 14,000 people's annual excrement, but all the
industrial sewage generated from a population this size. Toronto's
sludge has not always met the minimum levels of pathogens leaving the
digesters, nor met acceptable levels for metals like lead and copper
over the past two years. It has often received less than ten days in
the digester, which heightens pathogen levels. As mentioned, composting
or pelletizing may increase concentration of these contaminants. There
have been an alarming number of documented reports from around the
world of people suffering from such things as severe skin rashes and
boils, debilitating digestive illnesses and respiratory difficulties
after exposure to sludge spreading. In the U.S., the deaths of at least
two people have been linked to this practice.
Even the current provincial "Guidelines For The Utilization of
Biosolids.." admits that, when it comes to industrial components,
"There are significant gaps in knowledge with respect to
the fate of organic contaminants in biosolids applied to land....At
present, little is known about the effects of industrial organic
contaminants contained in other wastes when applied to agricultural
lands."
On June 1, the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society (CIDS) called
for a moratorium on sewage sludge spreading. (See exhibit Letter) They
took such a strong stand because "citizens must be protected against
potential infectious agents until there is clear cut evidence that such
actions will not lead to any potential public health hazard." They
recommend entombing of the sludge at a sanitary landfill, and "that the
disposal of all bio-materials be done in a safe and efficient manner,
and that studies be undertaken to ensure that current
disposal/spreading techniques are safe for the human population.....A
moratorium on their use is certainly in order where insufficient data
exists regarding safety to the Canadian population."
It has been calculated that farms accepting sludge will need 3 to
8 times more acreage in future to land apply the current mass of sludge
slated for spreading. This practice will ultimately not prove to be an
economically viable procedure, nor has its safety been established. It
makes sense to eliminate the practice of land application of sludges
and septage and start to bring manure management in line with the
management of other wastes.
AUTHORITY/JURISDICTION ISSUES
Although several high profile agribusiness associations are
supporting OMAFRA as the lead agency in the proposed scenario, we feel
this is remarkably short-sighted, if the goal is protection and
sustainability of safe water. This is especially true if there's a
threat to human or wildlife health caused by introduction of dangerous
toxins into the food chain. The obvious agency to take the lead on
regulation and enforceability is the MOE, with consultation from
OMAFRA, and the Ministry of Health, municipal officials and the public.
OMAFRA must be free of the regulatory regime, so they can do effective
extension work and not be in a conflict of interest as a lobby group
for agribusiness interests. Since this is a public health problem as
well as an environmental one, local and provincial health authorities
must be included in the loop.
The only binding mechanism we have at present are the Certificates
of Approval (C of A) required by the MOE (for septage, paper and sewage
sludge). This process has many faults, especially because it's a deal
between the MOE, the spreader/hauler and the farmer only. Neighbouring
citizens or municipal governments are powerless to intervene. In our
local experience, the MOE has not been particularly helpful with our
requests for public documents on the spreading, giving us the only
option of going through the "freedom of information" process. Despite
this, we feel that under no conditions should these instruments be
discontinued. Commercial fertilizers are generally not required to have
C of As. If included in this Act, certificates should be mandatory.
But the most serious concern we have is that manure for spreading
is not required to have a C of A and has an exemption from the
Environmental Protection Act (EPA) as long as "Normal Farm Practices"
are followed. Before the proliferation of intensive livestock
operations, what was referred to as "normal" would perhaps be 100
livestock with chickens. Management and storage of manure was much more
easily dealt with. Nowadays with the rapid increase of factory farms, a
barn with 5,000 pigs can create as much manure as a town of 20,000
people. Some municipalities that have tried to put restrictions on this
practice with local by-laws have been overruled by the government's
Normal Farm Practices Board. According to the draft proposal, if
someone goes before the Board, they must comply with Bill 81 standards
to be "normal", so why bother having such hearings?
ILOs have caused environmental degradation and social strife in
countless other jurisdictions, so proactive management is crucial. The
exemption for manure is extremely problematic, so as well as careful,
objective study we recommend that the phrase "normal farm practices"
should be abandoned. If something is to replace it, the phrase could be
"environmentally responsible farm practices"
Municipal jurisdiction will further be eroded in the proposed Act
in Subsection 60, which will supersede local by-laws. Since we are
aware of OMAFRA's stance that size of operation doesn't matter, we are
seriously concerned with this proposed provincial veto power as a real
source of conflict. By-laws have been passed in several municipalities
that cover issues such as minimum land ownership requirements, maximum
haulage distances, minimum thresholds for hydrogeological studies and
maximum numbers of livestock units. Our concern is that in trying to
create a generic set of regulations that may fit some but not all,
municipalities will not be able to deal with special cases and
circumstances in their area. Another flaw in this scenario
is that only new farm operations will be subject to any immediate
jurisdiction.
The Act as written will cause continued acrimony within the rural
community. Some by-laws written so far have reflected groundwater
concerns. Although local farmers supported minimal protection for those
with no coverage, this law would restrict that. Future problems will be
exacerbated and any legimate protection farmers need will be lost. We
therefore suggest that Subsection 60 be reworded to read: "A regulation
supersedes a by-law of a municipality or a provision in that by-law if
the by-law or provision is less stringent than the regulation."
Furthermore, under the proposed Subsection 55, the government has
given itself the ability to download or privatize certain
responsibilities. Of particular concern is the "review of nutrient
management plans or the issuance, amendment, suspension or revoking of
certificates and licenses". If something does go wrong, who in fact
will
be responsible if this is offloaded to the private sector? This is more
appropriately a public service that should be maintained.
The proposal refers to "the establishment and operation of local
committees" that would mediate in disputes connected with nutrient
management. This is superficially attractive, but in many cases, local
committees do not have the political will to mediate disputes between
the public and offending farmers. In our county, the Agricultural
Advisory Committee wrote a local Nutrient Management Bylaw, severely
lacking in general public input. It has stated it will continue with
its present membership. These include two councillors, two ratepayer
representatives, the local head of OFA and ten farmers, one of whom
owns the Hay Bay Genetics hog farm (average 3,000 in the barn). The
benefits are lost of any kind of democratic peer review, especially if
certain farmers dominate their area.
ENFORCEMENT
As previously noted, the Ministry of Environment should provide the
authority for monitoring, enforcement and mediation regarding Nutrient
Management Plans (NMPs). If there's an emergency spill, or abnormal
contaminant levels, they should be the lead agency investigating.
Municipal government levels simply do not have the capability or
arms-length relationship from the community to provide the enforcement
of NMPs. These plans should be publicly available documents, so that
full disclosure is required for proper assessment of local operations.
Documents should be available for review at municipal offices.
Complaint files of repeat offenders should also be available.
Transparency could be achieved by posting details on the Environmental
Bill of Rights Registry. Citizens must see that rules are being
observed on such things as separation distances,etc. There are many
farmers who support a municipal role. The trend toward megafarms will
continue, to the detriment of small family operations, if communities
are not allowed input into restriction of size of operations, for
example.
"STAKEHOLDERS"
Whenever we have looked into the power dynamics and process of
nutrient management and agricultural issues in general, there seems to
be an exclusive club of "stakeholders", that include OMAFRA and a
number of high-profile agribusinessmen who generally support the
deregulation of stringent standards, discourage MOE investigation and
enforcement and allow only token participation by the rest of their
communities. We strongly recommend that this trend be changed to
include environmental groups and other non-governmental organizations,
as well as the general citizenry. We urge you to initiate this by
allowing such interveners full status in the next stage of
consultations around the regulations and standards of this bill.
LIABILTY
From a legal standpoint, several different players in the land
application of wastes as fertilizer could be liable if contaminants
cause adverse effects to plants, humans and other life. These include
the generators (commonly municipal sewage treatment facilities), the
hauler/spreader and of course the farmer. From the farm standpoint,
former dairy farmer and now lawyer, Don Good has been asked his legal
advice (see exhibit article-"Steer Clear of Sewage Sludge"). Good
emphasizes that if the application of sludge is a waste disposal
program, farmers should demand a tipping fee for the use of their land
as a waste disposal site. If it is a valuable fertilizer, generators
should sell it to farmers for its nutrient value. Instead sludge has
been offered for free, or in some cases desperate municipalities are
offering to pay to help empty their bulging silos. As Good points
out, "The fact that sewage sludge has to be given away implies it is
worthless, In other words, the nutrient value is offset by some other
cost. This lack of value arises from the inherent risk of using
material contaminated with human diseases on farmland....This is your
dilemma! The promoters of sludge-as-fertilizer call it a valuable
recycling program that is safe. On the other hand, sludge has no value
due to its inherent risk."
MORATORIUMS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Because of mounting evidence that these farm practices are
potentially serious threats to human health and environmental
sustainability, jurisdictions around the world are moving to ban the
use of sewage sludge on farmland. In the U.S., the Texas community of
Sierra Blanca has terminated its contract with MERCO Inc. to accept New
York City's sludge. In California, several counties are moving towards
bans on sludge spreading. It has also recently been brought to our
attention that the practice has been banned throughout Sweden. To
reiterate the consensus of Canada's medical and scientific
professionals in the fields of infectious diseases and microbiology,
CIDS has stated that they "would like to see further assessments of the
safety of bio-materials as they are used in Canada, in order to limit
their use to what is known to be safe."
Also, because of the potential dangers of toxic uptake through
plants, several major food companies have refused to buy produce grown
on sewage sludge. These include: DelMonte, Heinz, Seabrooke, Nestle and
National Food Processors.
ALTERNATIVES
Recently, our local Public Works commissioner made a desperate
plea to county Council for guidance in disposing of sewage sludge from
the Picton plant. He was told by an MOE official that options included
temporary storage, dewatering or drying, disposal as a hazardous waste,
or the introduction of the sludge into the operation of a larger waste
water sewage plant. None of the above give us any confidence as to
their safety, but the very worst option is land application, so it
should be immediately ruled out. It is significant that two local
farmers have withdrawn their applications for spreading, due to their
concerns with potential health hazards.
Our group has taken the initiative to start organizing an
international conference for next year on alternative methods of waste
management. One positive, workable solution is the use of "Living
Machines" (see exhibit) as sewage treatment within individual buildings
and the use of "constructed wetlands" on a local watershed scale to
naturally remove the toxic contaminants.
As far as point sources of contaminants, we applaud the City of
Toronto's stringent new sewer use by-laws. Under no circumstances
should industries be able to use sewers as toxic waste depositories.
CONCLUSIONS
As mentioned, the Safe Water Group is actively seeking better
alternatives in dealing with toxic wastes and water protection. While
rural communities seek to improve solutions in our area, we must
emphatically stress that we should not also have to cope with major
cities dumping their waste on us. It is critical, therefore, that
citizens' groups and other NGOs be formal consultative stakeholders in
the ongoing process of decision-making regarding waste disposal and
sustainability of precious aquatic resources.
Local land use planning is crucial to analyse how we manage
resources and decide on farm vs urban usage. This should be done on a
watershed basis, with a mapping of surface groundwater and other
hydrogeological parameters, with the input of conservation authorities
and other key players. Priority studies should include the depths of
water table, type of superficial deposits, aquifer material,
groundwater flow, depth of bedrock and soil chemistry.
As we have stressed, the proposed Act as a whole relies almost
exclusively on nutrient management planning, to the complete detriment
of dealing with pathogens, or being an effective tool for groundwater
protection. Nutrient management will not protect groundwater in
Ontario. Assessment of those wastes presently under C of As should
remain under tightly monitored MOE control, because their toxicity goes
far beyond their nutrient content. Also, it is unreasonable to impose
restrictions on the farm use of manure, while permitting and
facilitating the spreading of sewage sludge and other industrial wastes
in violation of these principles. These wastes contain toxins far more
dangerous than livestock manures. The land application of sewage
sludge, septage and papermill sludge should be discontinued and other
means investigated. They should continue to be listed as wastes,
requiring C of As for transportation or disposal.
There can be no proper monitoring and enforcement without
substantial provincial funding flowing to the MOE. We feel it is also
crucial that municipal and citizen initiatives are more supported and
included, rather than continuously thwarted by provincial policies and
practices.
