Thursday, June 27, 2002

Re: Melancthon Twp. Moratorium? (KW Record June 2000)-Sludge Story

The moratorium is still on, and now the MOE offices in Guelph and Owen Sound
require Toronto sludge to be kept 1000 meters away from residencial
developments of 5 homes or more, and 250 meters away from individual
residences.


So unless there is a big land assembly with no homes, there won't be much
Toronto sewage spread up there. It will go looking for fields in other parts
of the province.

Monday, June 24, 2002

Biosolids spread on farm fields near Lone Pine Marsh

June 19, 2002

Biosolids spread on farm fields near Lone Pine Marsh
by TOM PHILP
The Independent

Biosolids continue to be spread legally in Cramahe Township, even though some local residents believe some of the sewage sludge could leach into a nearby wetland.

Azurix-Terratec Environmental has applied biosolids at Lot 29, Concession 5, Cramahe, on farmland abutting the Lone Pine Marsh, a Class 1 Wetland. The property is farmed by the Benedetti family of Castleton, who received a Certificate of Approval from the Peterborough office of Ontario's Ministry of Environment (MOE) to apply sludge near the marsh.

"Drainage and runoff conditions are considered by MOE officers (when reviewing applications to apply biosolids), said Mark Janiec, a spokesman for Azurix.

Janiec said he checked with his company's Lands Application Manager, Darilyn Vanclief, and determined Azurix employees applied biosolids properly on the Benedetti property.

Minimum distance setbacks were followed, and the sludge was worked into the soil shortly after application, he said.

Janiec said Vanclief was "not even aware" that a wetland existed near the application area.

"As you know, we've been under a microscope lately, so we are very careful to follow all the rules closely," he said.

Janiec, who worked as a program officer with Ontario's Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs before joining Azurix, said he had no concerns about any material that might find its way from the Benedetti fields to the Lone Pine Marsh.

"There are a number of wetland demonstration projects used to clean up water," he said. "Wetlands are nature's kidneys, filtering out things that enter the marsh."

The Benedetti property slopes steeply towards Lone Pine, and heavy rainfall could result in contaminants washing into the sanctuary, say some residents of neighbouring Alnwick-Haldimand Township.

Grafton resident John DeLaCour, who is a member of Friends of The Lone Pine Marsh, has written to Northumberland MPP Dr. Doug Galt to complain about Ministry policies that allow spreading to occur so close to protected lands.

In a report appearing Monday in Walter Luedtke's Alnwick-Haldimand newsletter, Grafton Horticultural Society president John Liptay calls the situation "tragic."

"Some unthinking persons have blindly sowed seeds of harm to the Lone Pine Marsh," Liptay states. "It grieves me that these 'deathosolids' have been dumped next to such a special place."

Liptay is encouraging members of Horticultural Societies to join in a letter-writing campaign to Galt, the Municipalities of Cramahe and Alnwick-Haldimand, and Bruce Hancock, Manager of the Peterborough MOE office.

Contacted at his Castleton home, Mario Benedetti is not worried about sludge being applied to his lands. The process was accepted by the MOE, and Azurix "has kept back the legal required distance," he said.

"I don't know what (the concerned neighbours) problem is," Benedetti said. "It looks to me like they're trying to put up a stink about nothing."

Sunday, June 16, 2002

Port Hope asked to examine practice of spreading sludge on land

Town asked to examine practice of spreading sludge on land


Jeanne Beneteau, Staff Writer

PORT HOPE - A proposed six-month ban on sludge application in Ward 2 will give councillors time to examine potential problems and viable alternatives for sludge disposal, says a group of Port Hope residents.
At Port Hope's public works committee meeting Tuesday evening, on a notice of motion by Councillor Dave Watson supported by Coun. Larry Hall, committee members recommended a six-month moratorium for biosolid application on agricultural land in Ward 2. A vote on the notice of motion is expected at next week's council meeting.

During the six-month ban, council will also look at a nutrient management bylaw to set standards for sludge application in the municipality.

If the Province decides the ban is not legal, Councillor Linda Thompson said stringent controls must be included in the draft conditions for a sludge-spreading application for three Ward 2 sites currently under consideration. In addition, the Town will seek legal advice to ensure it has the right to deny permission of sludge spreading at the three sites.

Twelve speakers took to the floor Tuesday night, many of them members of a citizens' action group, 'Residents Against Biosolids', to present their arguments against a recent application submitted by Terratec Environmental Ltd. to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The company has applied for approval to apply biosolids from the Port Hope sewage treatment plant on three Ward 2 sites. The municipality has been granted an extension from June 5 to June 28 to submit its comments and recommendations to the MOE on the certificate of approval for the spreading.

Group spokesman Marlene Hungerford says the use of biosolids poses a risk to the area wildlife, watershed, fish habitat and human inhabitants. Ms. Hungerford says there is enough evidence the three fields in question do not meet MOE criteria as potential sludge application sites.

"The MOE examiner came out to the area in December and indicated there would be no problem," says Ms. Hungerford. "However, during the hard rain on May 31 and for a few hours after, he would have seen the true picture... run-off from the fields running into ditches and creeks and eroded soil from the land flowing down the laneways."

Ms. Hungerford noted conditions in December differ greatly from what happens when the rain falls. The lay of the land and the tile drainage system which directs water flow away from the fields makes the lands in question undesirable for biosolid application, she says.

"In light of the Walkerton tragedy, it is important to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the process is safe," she added.

Newtonville resident Ken Thompson says sludge spreading at the three Ward 2 sites could have disastrous effects.

"Two of the three sites are in the water discharge area for Port Britain creek which, due to slope and drainage, flows into Lake Ontario and back to the Port Hope water filtration plant," says Mr. Thompson. "What goes around comes around."

Milton Baulch, who lives on Baulch Road, says he is 400 feet from one of the potential sludge-spreading sites. His grandfather bought the farm in 1910 and over the years, Mr. Baulch says there has never been a polluted well on the property. He noted the terrain is all downhill from Hwy. 401 along Baulch Road, and in spring and during heavy rains, the water makes its way into Lake Ontario through Little Creek.

"There are many problems for wells, and sludge will become more of a problem at 16,000 gallons an acre," he said. "Take a look at the concerned faces around the room, and take their wishes into account."

Ward 2 resident Carmen Irwin says over the years, flooding and the ensuing sludge-laden erosion has polluted the fish population.

"The erosion is inevitable, and I have tolerated it for quite a few years," says Mr. Irwin. "Put sewage on those fields and tell me who do I sue."

Public works committee chairman Deputy Mayor Aldo D'Agostino says the public works department supports the use of biosolids as long as best practices are followed in its application, adhering to standards and criteria determined by the Town.

Deputy Mayor D'Agostino added the current budget sets aside $150,000 to handle the sludge; to landfill or incinerate the sludge could cost in the order of $800,000.

Monday, June 10, 2002

Sludge Story Wins Award

The Kenneth R. Wilson Awards were presented at a dinner was hosted by the Canadian Business Press.

Guy Crittenden won the Silver Award for Best Single Article for his article in Solid Waste & Recycling
magazine last year entitled "Sludge
Fight" . It is about the questionable practice of applying sewage sludge on crop fields.

You can read the article at:
http://www.solidwastemag.com/issues/ISarticle.asp?id=56572&story_id=SW101344&issue=12012001&PC=

It was also circulated on the SludgeWatch List Serv in February 2002.

Nutrient Management Questionnaire

http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/environment/
nutrientmgmt/questionnaire.htm


Nutrient Management Questionnaire

It is anticipated that regulations to address the management of
agricultural nutrients will be developed over the summer of 2002 for
implementation under the proposed Nutrient Management Act.

The intent of this questionnaire is to facilitate discussion and stimulate
ideas. This questionnaire is not intended to present a government position,
rather to explore and seek input into the drafting of the nutrient
management regulations.

To access these files, please save to your local drive. You have the option
of completing the Word version on your computer and emailing the completed
questionnaire to the email address below, or you may print the document and
mail/fax to the address/fax number below. Please return the completed
questionnaire by June 28, 2002.

Nutrient Management
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
1 Stone Road West, 3rd Floor SE
Guelph, ON N1G 4Y2
Attention: Kathie Noble
Fax: 519-826-3259
Email: nma at omafra.gov.on.ca

Proposed Nutrient Management Act 2001 Webpage -
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/agops/index.html

Friday, June 07, 2002

New application sludge in Port Hope

A company called Terratec has applied for a certificate of approval to
spread biosolids on three large plots of farmland in Ward 2 of the Town
of Port Hope (formerly Hope Township). I am among the local residents
fighting this, but we need advice and guidance before it's finalized at
a town council meeting on Tuesday (June 11).

Brief background: The former township of Hope passed a bylaw in 1995
banning the use of biosolids in its jurisdiction. This was challenged by
the towns of Port Hope and Cobourg at the OMB, which tossed out the
bylaw. The settlement allowed any licensed contractor to apply for
certificates of approval to dump waste in the township, but the council
could recommend restrictions. Subsequently, of course, Hope and Port
Hope amalgamated, and it's now all one municipality. The town of Port
Hope signed a contract in 1996 with Prism Resource Management Limited,
and extended it in 2001 under the name of Azurix North America, which
apparantly is the same company as Terratec.

I have several questions which I hope people on this list can answer,
and a request:

1. Is there any way we can stop this? The town council says it's out of
its hands, since the MOE has the sole power to approve or reject this
application.

2. Does any municipality ban outright the dumping of biosolids? Has this
action been challenged or does it stand today?

3. If we can't stop it, what conditions should we ask to be put on the
certificate of approval?

4. What is the record of Prism/Azurix/Terratec elsewhere? Has this
company ever been implicated in health or environmental damage?

5. The minutes of settlement arrived at before the OMB and signed in
September 1998 contain a provision saying the "agreement shall be
reviewed by the parties from time to time but in any event at least once
every five years commencing from the first day of June, 1997." To my
knowledge, that has not been done. Could we use this to delay the
certificate of approval and open the whole matter up?

And now my request:

Aside from sending me your advice, I wonder if you could e-mail a letter
of concern to: Mayor and Councillors,
The Municipality of Port Hope
P.O. Box 112, 56 Queen St., Port Hope ON L1A 3V9

The e-mail address is admin at town.porthope.on.ca

Thank you,


John Miller
semiller at sympatico.ca

Thursday, June 06, 2002

Protect the Ridges/Media Release

MEDIA RELEASE
THURSDAY JUNE 6, 2002
PROTECT THE RIDGES PUBLIC MEETING

Enfield, Ontario:

Last evening about 300 concerned citizens packed the Enfield Church to
hear an update from Protect the Ridges on the group's 2 year battle to
have testing and monitoring of paper sludge, the Sound-Sorb gun berm and
a compost site on the Oak Ridges Moraine carried out by the Ministry of
the Environment.

In addition to an update of the group's progress to date, the evening
consisted of a panel discussion on 'Creating the Political Momentum
for Action'. The panel consisted of Mr. John O'Toole ( Durham MPP ), Mr.
Doug Moffatt (Scugog Mayor and Durham Region Councilor ), and Mr. Ken
Gorman ( Durham Director of Environmental Health ).

At the meeting it was announced by Mr. O'Toole that he had received a
promise from Environment Minister The Hon Chris Stockwell, in the
Legislative Assembly of Ontario, on Tuesday June 4th, that the much
anticipated test results on the massive Sound-sorb berm at the Oshawa
Skeet and Gun Club would be released within two weeks. Mr. Stockwell
also promised that the test wells to monitor the groundwater would be
drilled by July, and that the bioaerosol study would be started by the
end of June. These studies were originally promised in August 2000.
The Ministry will also review its controversial decision to exempt
Sound-sorb from environmental regulations based on these testing
results.

While encouraged by this announcement, Protect the Ridges co-chair Kevin
Campbell stated " This is the third Minister that has put forth promises
in the past two years, yet the Durham office of the MOE can't seem to
get it's act together to produce results. We will eagerly await the
promised actions while investigating all avenues, including legal,
available to us at this time. Our patience has truly run out."

Protect the Ridges concerns grow the longer these wastes leach into the
groundwater.

For more information contact Deb Vice ( 905-655-5045 ) or Kevin Campbell

( 905-655-1048 )

Wednesday, June 05, 2002

Melancthon Twp. Moratorium? (KW Record June 2000)-Sludge StoryHi Maureen. You had mentioned to Ron Hart a couple weeks ago about

Hi Maureen. You had mentioned to Ron Hart a couple weeks ago about
Melancthon Twp.(Shelburne area). I did a GoogleSearch on it and came up
with the following Kitchener-Waterloo Record story. Of particular
interest is the part where Winfield from CIELAP says "legislation
passed in 1998 gave farmers the right to pollute and removed the right
people once had to take a farmer to court". Also the info on wells. But
even more important in the article is the action of beekeeper Paul
Chantree and 20 others to halt sludge spreading. What has happened
there since then(i.e. with the "review of the practice" and "public
meeting")Is the moratorium still on? I'll continue investigating.
Perhaps try to contact author of article? Get Chantree's phone # from
directory assistance? Contact Grand River Conservation Authority? Does
anyone have an update on this story? BC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use of sewage sludge for fertilizer questioned
E. coli outbreak raises concerns about what's being put on farm fields
Bob Burtt
RECORD STAFF
Jun. 26, 2000
It is a practice almost as old as agriculture itself but, in the wake
of Walkerton's E. coli epidemic, some people are worried sick about
what's being dumped on Ontario's farms. As cleanup crews continue
swabbing and flushing Walkerton's watermains, the provincial coroner is
investigating at least seven, possibly as many as 18, deaths that may
be linked to the outbreak. At this point, nobody knows for sure how the
E. coli bacteria got into the town's water supply, but that hasn't
stopped accusing fingers from pointing to farms.
And it isn't just manure that's causing concern. Sewage sludge and
industrial wastes are routinely spread on farm fields adding nutrients
and phosphates to the soil. Most of the waste disappears into the soil,
but guidelines allow for up to two per cent of the waste to be
non-biodegradable.
Across the province, everything from treated sewage sludge to waste
from paper mills and other garbage such as composted tomatoes, potatoes
and cookies is spread on farm fields. The practice is legal if
guidelines are followed. However, critics say that's not always the
case and there have been instances where the stuff has been spread
within a metre of the Grand River in Woolwich Township and in swampy
areas at the headwaters of the Grand.
More than 200 sites within Waterloo Region and Wellington, Dufferin and
Brant counties have licences to accept waste from sewage treatment
plants and septic systems and industrial waste.
A 1993 report by the Canadian Geoscience Council of Canada raised
concern about the effect agriculture practices are having on the
country's groundwater resources. "Canada's knowledge of agricultural
impacts on groundwater is meagre, even though there is good reason to
suspect that agriculture is one of the main causes of significant
groundwater contamination in many parts of Canada," the report said.
The same gaps in knowledge exist now, says John Cherry, a University of
Waterloo groundwater scientist and co-author of the 1993 report.
He said both the federal and Ontario governments have cut back on
research and dispensed with many of their groundwater experts.
Make no mistake about it, says Mark Winfield, the spreading of manure,
sewage sludge, industrial wastes and pesticides can all have a major
environmental impact. Winfield is research director with the Canadian
Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. The institute is a
think-tank that does research and analysis of environmental policy in
Canada and receives financial support from a variety of foundations in
Canada and the United States as well as the federal government.
Winfield said the advent of large factory farms is of particular
concern. "One has to ask the question, 'Is this a beneficial
application or is it waste disposal?' " Winfield said. In some
instances, he said, there are questions about the ability of crops and
farm fields to absorb what is being put on them. Winfield said
legislation passed in 1998 gives farmers the right to pollute and
removes the right people once had to take a farmer to court concerning
farm practices. Now, Winfield said, the only recourse is to take
complaints to a farm practices protection board for resolution.
"Common law says you can't do anything that interferes with the normal
use of your property. This (1998 legislation) takes that away."
When something goes wrong, whether it starts on a farm field or a
malfunctioning septic system, the consequences for private or municipal
water systems can be horrific. A study of 1,300 Ontario farm wells in
1991-92 found that one third of the wells were contaminated with
bacteria and 20 per cent contained fecal coliform.
Michael Goss, a professor in the University of Guelph's department of
land resource science, told a recent press conference that bacteria can
be carried into water if manure is spread or held in areas where runoff
can occur. Goss estimates 50 per cent of water-borne diseases are
caused by contaminated wells. Diseases are usually stomach-related and
could be carried by parasites such as cryptosporidium or bacteria such
as E. coli. David Rudolph, a University of Waterloo hydrogeologist,
told the same conference that the danger that lurks in farm fields
underscores the need for proper well design, construction and
maintenance. It is common for wells to be improperly sealed and
vulnerable to contamination. In many instances, the contamination is
restricted to one well and the danger subsides after the problem is
addressed. The situation is more serious and the solution more
difficult if contaminants get into the aquifer.
People tend to dig or drill wells, use them and pay little attention to
maintenance, says John Fitzgibbon, a hydrogeologist with the University
of Guelph. Fitzgibbon said wells are often not planned, positioned or
constructed in a sound manner. Some municipal and private wells are
over 100 years old. If grouting and sealing of a well isn't done
properly there's nothing to prevent contamination from getting in. A
well is like an incision on the skin of the earth and if you puncture
the skin infection can get in, Fitzgibbon said.
Abandoned wells can sometimes provide greater risk than those still in
use. Contaminants can pollute an entire aquifer once they get into an
abandoned well, but would likely be pumped out of an active well.
According to Goss, there is no more manure produced in Ontario now than
in the 1950s, but the likelihood of farm wells being contaminated is
far greater. Goss speculates that the shift from solid to liquid manure
has contributed to the problem, but says the research necessary to
confirm that conclusion hasn't been done.
A trend that has seen farmers specialize in a single commodity has led
to greater concentrations of cattle and hogs on fewer farms.
For instance in 1978, 18,398 hog producers produced about three million
hogs in Ontario. By 1999 the number of producers dropped to 5,099 but
they produced about 4.64 million hogs.
Paul Chantree, a Dundalk area beekeeper who serves on the Grand River
Conservation Authority, has long been concerned about the spreading of
biosolids (sewage sludge) on farm fields, and recent heavy rains has
made the practice even more questionable in his mind.
Recently he and a delegation of about 20 others persuaded Melancthon
Township, near Dundalk at the headwaters of the Grand River, to issue a
moratorium on sludge spreading. Council said spreading will have to
stop until a review of the practice has been completed and a public
meeting involving haulers, the ministries of environment and
agriculture is held.
He's not the only one concerned. John Hanselman, an independent
ecological researcher from Brantford, said heavy rains can wash the
sludge into surface water or into the sub surface and water table. "It
doesn't allow time for plants to uptake (absorb) the material."
Hanselman, an environmental resource studies graduate from the
University of Waterloo, has researched and written several papers on
biosolids. "These wet conditions are ideal for bacteria and viruses,"
Hanselman said.
Guidelines for the use of sewage sludge and other wastes on farm fields
set out when, how and how much waste can be applied to any field. For
instance, sewage sludge can be applied only once every five years and
it can only be applied when the water table is at least 1.5 metres
below ground level. Hanselman notes that this year the water table in
much of Ontario is much higher than in recent years. Many farm fields
are under water and flooded farm fields are one concern being explored
in Walkerton as a possible source of contamination.
While critics view the spreading of sludge as an accident waiting to
happen, farmers and municipalities say it is a win-win situation that
provides land with nutrients and provides municipalities with an
inexpensive alternative to incineration.
Licenced haulers haul an average of 300,000 cubic metres or 7,500
tanker trucks a year from Waterloo Region to designated sites, some in
and some outside of the region. Dave Andrews, manager of wastewater
operations for Waterloo, said residue from the region's 11 sewage
treatment plants is injected to a depth of four inches into the ground.

"Properly stabilized, there should be minimal risk to humans, animals
or the environment." Andrews said there would be a large number of
fecal coliform in untreated sewage, but the number would be
dramatically reduced in the treatment process.
The city of Toronto has relied on an incinerator, but will soon join
other communities that spread the waste on farm fields. And when it
does, it is expected to generate enough for 17 tanker trucks a day.

Protocols for Updating Certificates of Approval for: Sewage Works; Water Works; Air Emissions; and Waste Management

EBR Registry Number: PA02E0007 Type of Posting: Policy
Ministry: Environment Status of Posting: Proposal
Date Proposal Loaded: 2002/05/30
Comment Period: 60 day(s)
Written submissions may be made between May 30, 2002 and July 29, 2002.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL FOR POLICY
© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2002

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Proposal Title:

Protocols for Updating Certificates of Approval for: Sewage Works; Water
Works; Air Emissions; and Waste Management

Short Description:

The Ministry of the Environment (the "Ministry") is committed to ensuring
its clients and the public have the information they need about Ontario's
environmental protection programs.

The Ministry's Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch (EAAB) has
developed a series of documents to communicate key facts about the existing
process in place for updating Certificates of Approval (CofA) to reflect
up-to-date environmental, operational and monitoring and reporting
requirements.

Each document in this series – formally referred to as a "Protocols for
Updating Certificates of Approval" – describes the common updating process
used for all types of Cs of A and also outlines the specific requirements
which are unique for each of the different environmental "media". These
include:


- Sewage Works

- Water Works

- Air Emissions

- Waste Management


Each of the Protocols describe the current approach for selecting Cs of A
for updating, together with the specific assessment criteria used to
determine the scope of the update, and the process that will be followed.

Purpose of the Proposal:

The purpose of the Protocols is to document and communicate to clients in
the regulated community and the public the Ministry's existing practices
for updating Cs of A. The Protocols provide a common understanding of how
and when existing Certificates of Approval (CsofA) are selected and
assessed by the Ministry for updating.

The information in the Protocols is intended to help clients and the public
understand the updating process, and ensure that it is as effective and
efficient as possible for all parties involved.

The Protocols are operational tools to promote consistency and to foster
continuous improvement in the current process so that existing Cs of A keep
pace with new environmental protection requirements.

Other Relevant Information:

The following documents are available by clicking below:
1. Protocol for Updating Certificates of Approval for Sewage Works.
2. Protocol for Updating Certificates of Approval for Water Works.
3. Protocol for Updating Certificates of Approval for Air Emissions.
4. Protocol for Updating Certificates of Approval for Waste Management.

Other Public Consultation:

The Protocols are operational tools which document the existing process for
updating Certificates of Approval and are being posted on the Environmental
Registry to provide clients in the regulated community and the public with
an opportunity to comment.

To update a Certificate of Approval, the Ministry will work and communicate
in a transparent manner with the facility owner and fulfill public
consultation requirements. When required by the Environmental Bill of
Rights, the proposal for the Certificate of Approval application will also
be posted on the Environmental Registry for public comment.

Additionally, comments can be sent via e-mail to: Alice.Verbaas at ene.gov.on.ca

Comments should be directed to the following Contact Person:

Alice Verbaas, Senior Program Support Coordinator
Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West, 14th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1L5
PHONE: (416) 314-8341 FAX: (416) 314-8452
Some Government offices have additional information on this proposal for
viewing.
These are listed below:


Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 12A, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1L5
PHONE: (416) 314-8001 FAX: (416) 314-8452
Additional material in support of this notice is available by clicking the
following hyperlink(s):

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/
documents/2002/
PA02E0007_Sewage _Works.pdf

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/
documents/2002/
PA02E0007_Water_ Works.pdf

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/
documents/2002 /PA02E0007_Air_Emissions.pdf

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/
documents/2002
/PA02E0007_Waste_Management.pdf


All comments will be considered as part of the decision-making by the
Ministry if they:
(a) are submitted in writing;
(b) reference the EBR Registry number; and
(c) are received by the Contact person within the specified comment period.

** No acknowledgment or individual response will be provided to those who
comment. All comments & submissions received will become part of the public
record. **


Ontario Environment Network
P.O. Box 1412, Station Main
North Bay, ON P1B 8K6
t: 705-840-2888 f: 705-840-5862
<oen at oen.ca>
http://www.oen.ca/

The OEN is an affiliate network of the Canadian Environmental Network .
Please visit their web site at http://www.cen-rce.org/ .