Medical association warns about pig farms

>From CBC New Brunswick ...

Medical association warns about pig farms

Moncton, N.B. - The Canadian Medical Association is speaking out against large pig farms. It says they could be a threat to human health, just what some New Brunswickers have feared for some time.


Three years ago, a large hog farm housing 10,000 pigs opened 5 km down the road from Jerry Cook's home. He likes rural living and the clean environment that goes with it but not the pig farm.

"There were two parts of it that always upset me: the contamination of ground and surface water and the other is the emissions from the building."

Cook and dozens of others became well known protesters, lobbying government to get rid of the pig farm. Some worried about its effect on the environment. Others about its effect on people. Now, the group has received some indirect support from the Canadian Medical Association.


The CMA has passed three motions:
--- that industrial hog farms may be a threat to human health
--- that provinces temporarily halt expansion of industrial hog farming
--- that more research be done

Dr. Les Allaby, head of the New Brunswick Medical Association, supports the motion.


"There's been a big expansion in industrial hog farming in Ontario and Quebec apparently. It's encroaching on neighbouring communities and it's causing concern."

Allaby says currently there may not be a problem in New Brunswick, but industrial hog farms should be investigated.


But provincial Agriculture Minister Rodney Weston says he won't call for a moratorium. Weston says one large pig farm in New Brunswick has been studied and there isn't a problem.

To Jerry Cook, that's hogwash.


"I wondered if he was cleaning sand out of his ears because the policy of the province is just to bury its head and pretend this whole thing isn't happening."

Cook says the CMA's comments are another weapon in his group's arsenal and may help to close the nearby hog farm.

ONTARIO TO CONSULT ON NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS

The following is the government's press release announcing consultation on the much-anticipated regulations under the new Nutrient Management Act.

The media backgrounder is below the press release.

The EBR posting is below that. The deadline for comments is October 19, 2002.



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


Queen's Park Watch on the H2infO web site at www.H2infO.org has links to the text of the Act and the EBR posting as well as comments on the Act from groups such as the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Sierra Legal Defense Fund, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and Conservation Ontario.



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


PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release
August 20, 2002

ONTARIO TO CONSULT ON NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
TORONTO - The Ernie Eves government is moving forward on its pledge to ensure clean, safe drinking water in the province by launching public consultations on regulations under the new Nutrient Management Act, Minister of Agriculture and Food Helen Johns and Minister of Environment and Energy Chris Stockwell announced today at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's annual conference.

"We're committed to implementing regulations as quickly as possible that will protect our water and the environment as well as maintain the competitiveness of our agri-food industry," said Johns. "At the same time, we want to get them right, which means taking the time to obtain input from farmers, environmentalists, municipalities and others."

"Our government is committed to ensuring that Ontario has, and enforces, the best clean water policies in the world," said Stockwell. "We are committed to implementing all of Commissioner O'Connor's recommendations. The government's nutrient management strategy will form part of the water protection system envisioned by Commissioner O'Connor."

The Act, passed on June 27, 2002, enhances the protection of Ontario's water resources by minimizing the effects of agricultural practices on the environment, especially as they relate to land-applied materials containing nutrients. The protections outlined in the legislation are consistent with Commissioner Dennis O'Connor's recommendations in the Report of the Walkerton Inquiry Part Two.

Consultations will be held in at least three stages, with each stage involving the posting of draft regulations on the Environmental Bill of Rights information registry (http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/registry.htm ), as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's and Ministry of Environment and Energy's Web sites (www.ene.gov.on.ca and www.gov.on.ca/omaf ).

Stage one will focus on:

a.. content requirements for nutrient management plans (NMPs), which set out the best ways to use nutrients in manure, commercial fertilizers and other nutrient-rich materials in order to maximize economic benefits while minimizing environmental effects.
b.. the categories of livestock operations that will be required to prepare these NMPs
A series of province-wide public consultation meetings will be led by Ministers Stockwell and Johns and government staff. The dates and locations of the meetings will be posted on both ministries' Web sites in the near future.

Stage two consultations will begin in October 2002, and will include other regulations that address the specifics contained in most municipal nutrient management plan by-laws. Stage three consultations will include regulations dealing with livestock access to waterways, manure haulage and transfer, and washwater and dead animal disposal.

- 30 -

Contacts:

Derek Nelson
Minister Johns' Office
(416) 326-3861

Heather Capannelli
Minister Stockwell's Office
(416) 314-6742

John Steele
Ministry of Environment and Energy
(416) 314-6666



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


MEDIA BACKGROUNDER

August 20, 2002

CONSULTATIONS ON DRAFT REGULATIONS UNDER NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ACT
The Nutrient Management Act received Royal Assent in the Ontario Legislature on June 27, 2002. As part of the Ontario government's Clean Water Strategy, the Act provides for province-wide standards to address the effects of agricultural practices on the environment, especially as they relate to land-applied materials containing nutrients.

The Act addresses the issues and risks identified in the Environmental Commissioner's special report of July 2000, "The Protection of Ontario's Groundwater and Intensive Farming." It aligns with Commissioner Dennis O'Connor's Report of the Walkerton Inquiry Part Two and builds on the government's Smart Growth Strategy, which calls for well-planned and environmentally sensitive development.

The legislation represents a comprehensive, clear, province-wide approach that protects water, the environment and the well-being of communities in rural Ontario, while ensuring farmers can invest in and operate their farms with confidence. The need for this approach was confirmed by farmers, municipalities, environmental groups and others during consultations held by the Task Force on Intensive Agricultural Operations in Rural Ontario during early 2000

The government has pledged to move quickly to develop and implement regulations under the Nutrient Management Act.

Developing regulations

The government will use the O'Connor report and the results of further stakeholder consultations to develop regulations that incorporate standards and best practices to ensure both the best possible protection for the environment and the continued economic viability of farming in Ontario

Consultations will be held in at least three stages, with each stage involving the posting of draft regulations on the Environmental Bill of Rights information registry (http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/registry.htm), as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's and Ministry of Environment and Energy's Web sites (www.ene.gov.on.ca and www.gov.on.ca/omaf ). These postings will be followed by public consultation meetings:

Stage one, beginning August 20, 2002, includes a draft regulation covering:

A. The content of nutrient management plans (NMPs), including farm identification and location; a farm map and site plan; details of the types of nutrients used on the farm; field by field information such as soil tests, nutrient allocations, and crop rotations; manure and biosolids applications; and contingency plans to address such things as spills and severe weather. B. The categories of agricultural operations that will be required to prepare these NMPs, and when. Categories would be based on nutrient units: The number of animals housed or pastured at one time that produce enough manure to fertilize one acre of crops under the most limiting of either nitrogen or phosphorus.

a.. Category IV livestock operations would have 300 nutrient units or more, meaning more than 150 dairy cows or 1,800 finishing pigs. This requirement for a nutrient management plan would apply to new or expanding operations in March 2003, and to existing operations in 2004.
b.. Category III livestock operations would have 150 to 300 nutrient units, or 75-150 dairy cows or 900-1,800 finishing pigs. The requirement for a nutrient management plan would apply to new or expanding operations in March 2003, and to existing operations in 2005.
c.. Category II livestock operations would have 30-150 nutrient units, or 15-75 dairy cows or 180-900 finishing pigs. The requirement for a nutrient management plan would apply to new and expanding operations in March 2003, to existing operations that generate liquid manure in 2005, and to other existing operations in 2008.
d.. Category I livestock operations would have less than 30 nutrient units, or fewer than 15 dairy cows or 180 finishing pigs. This requirement would apply to new or expanding operations in March, 2003, and to existing operations in 2008.
e.. All other agricultural operations, including non-livestock, would be required to submit nutrient management plans in 2008.
Locations and times of the public consultation meetings will be posted on the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Ministry of Environment and Energy internet sites in the near future.

Stage two will include other regulations that address the specifics contained in most municipal Nutrient Management Plan by-laws. These include construction and siting of barns and manure storages; land application; biosecurity; local advisory committees; feedlot operations; the content requirements of nutrient management strategies for municipalities and other non-farm industries that apply nutrients to land; setback distances for applying nutrients around water ways and other sensitive features; restrictions for spreading nutrients on snow-covered or saturated land; MOEE's land application program review; MOEE's strategy for the five-year phase-out of the application of untreated septage.

Consultation meetings are expected to begin in October, 2002. These regulations are expected to be in force in March 2003.

Stage three will include regulations dealing with livestock access to waterways; manure haulage and transfer; and washwater and dead animal disposal.

As continuous improvements are made in nutrient management, with advances in technology and best practices, more regulations may be drafted and consultations held.

- 30 -

Contacts:

Derek Nelson
Minister Johns' Office
(416) 326-3861

Heather Capannelli
Minister Stockwell's Office
(416) 314-6742

John Steele
Ministry of Environment and Energy
(416) 314-6666




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


EBR Posting


EBR Registry Number: RC02E0001 Type of Posting: Regulation
Ministry: Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Status of Posting: Proposal
Date Proposal Loaded: 2002/08/20
Comment Period: 60 day(s)
Written submissions may be made between August 20, 2002 and October 19, 2002.


NOTICE OF PROPOSAL FOR REGULATION

© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2002
Proposal Title:

Stage 1 Draft Nutrient Management Regulations under the Nutrient Management Act

Regulation or Bill Number: Bill 81

Short Description:

The Stage 1 draft regulations and protocols under the Nutrient Management Act specify the content requirements for nutrient management plans and strategies for prescribed agricultural operations. They also propose categories of farm operations, and the dates that new, expanding and existing operations in each category would be required to have approved nutrient management plans and / or strategies.

Purpose of the Proposal:

The purpose of the Stage 1 draft nutrient management regulations and protocols is to specify:
"X content requirements for nutrient management plans (NMPs) and nutrient management strategies (NMSs) for farm operations, which set out the best ways to use nutrients (mainly potassium, phosporus and nitrogen) in manure, commerical fertilizers and other materials in order to maximize economic benefits while minimizing environmental effects; and
"X the categories of farm operations which will require these NMPs and NMSs, and dates when they will require them.


Other Relevant Information:

NEWS RELEASE, BACKGROUNDER, DRAFT REGULATION AND PROTOCOLS AND OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

The following documentation can be viewed by clicking on one of the two URL links listed below. Links to both french and english versions of the documents are provided. You may also access these documents by going directly to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food website (http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAF).

1) News Release concerning draft nutrient management regulations
2) Backgrounder
3) Draft Regulation and Protocols
4) Background Information on Nutrient Management and Intensive Agricultural Operations

For additional information concerning the above documents, please contact George Garland, Manager of Engineering & Technology programs with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food at 519-826-3560, fax 519-826-3259 or via email at george.garland at omaf.gov.on.ca

PUBLIC CONSULTATION MEETINGS ON STAGE 1 REGULATIONS
A series of regional meetings will be held during August and September. Specific dates and locations will be posted on the Ministry web site.

KEY ACTIVITIES/REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

JANUARY 2000
Government consultation on intensive agricultural operations

APRIL 2000
Task force report on consultation

JULY 2000
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs releases task force report and supports province-wide standards for farm practices

JULY 2000
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario releases preliminary report on water quality and intensive agricultural operations

SEPTMEBER 2000
Ministers of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Environment, and Municipal Affairs and Housing hold stakeholder consultation workshop on intensive agriculture

OCTOBER 2000
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario releases Annual Report

JUNE 2001
Bill 81, Proposed Nutrient Management Act, introduced into Ontario Legislature for 1st reading.
SEPTEMBER 2001
Public legislative hearings on Bill 81.
JANUARY 2002
Release of Part 1 report of Walkerton Inquiry
MAY 2002
Release of Part 2 Report of Walkerton Inquiry
JUNE 2002
Bill 81, the Nutrient Management Act, receives 3rd reading and Royal Assent.

Please refer to Ministry's website for additional information concerning nutrient management and previous public consultations on the matter.
Other Public Consultation:
Information concerning public consultations on Stage 2 and 3 regulations will be posted as it becomes available.
Comments should be directed to the following Contact Person:
George Garland, Manager, Engineering and Technology
Resources Management , Ministry of Agriculture and Food
1 Stone Road West, 3rd Floor South
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 4Y2
PHONE: (519) 826-3560 FAX: (519) 826-3259
Some Government offices have additional information on this proposal for viewing.
These are listed below:
Strategic Policy Branch, Ministry of Agriculture and Food
77 Grenville Street, 10th floor
Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1B3
PHONE: (416) 326-3206 FAX: (416) 325-1156
Resources Management, Ministry of Agriculture and Food
1 Stone Road West, 3rd floor South
Guelph, Ontario, N1G 4Y2
PHONE: (519) 826-4120 FAX: (519) 826-3259


Other Public Consultation:

Information concerning public consultations on Stage 2 and 3 regulations will be posted as it becomes available.

Comments should be directed to the following Contact Person:

Policy Advisor
Strategic Policy Branch
77 Grenville Street
Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1B3
PHONE: (416) 326-5974 FAX: (416) 325-1156
Additional material in support of this notice is available by clicking the following hyperlink(s):


http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAF/english/agops/index.html
http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAF/french/agops/index.html

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. **



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

Hamilton waste too toxic; Sewage pellets

The Hamilton Spectator
Editorial/opinion, Saturday, August 17, 2002, p. D04

Hamilton waste too toxic; Sewage pellets

RE: 'The sweet smell of managed waste; City's sewage contractor wants to open fertilizer pellet plant' (Aug. 7).

Of all the sewage sludge spread on farmland in Ontario, Hamilton's sludge is one of the most toxic. But Phil Sidhwa, of American Water Services Canada Corp., would have the public believe that Hamilton sludge, if dried into pellets, can likened to Milorganite, a fertilizer created from sewage waste in Milwaukee.

This is simply not the case. The heavy metals in Hamilton sludge are as much as five or six times higher than those in Milorganite. That means that, every time a gardener used Hamilton sludge to fertilize vegetables, he/she would be getting six times higher levels of contamination in the soil where the food is grown.

Some of these metals, like cadmium, are known to be transferred up into the stalks and leaves, particularly in spinach and swiss chard. Dioxins are taken up into cucumbers.

Sludge pelletization is no magic wand for sludge disposal: toxic chemicals in, toxic chemicals out. We need to stop transferring industrial contaminants into the food chain, whether it is through liquid sewage sludge on farms or dried sewage sludge in a fertilizer bag.

-- Maureen Reilly, Toronto

The Water Environment Association of Ontario (WEAO) is an organization
of industries and municipalities. The Biosolids subcommittee of WEAO
meets to discuss policy and strategy on sewage and biosolids.

Members of WEAO have noted the public concern about health issues
related to the land application of sewage sludge and have decided to
prepare a video on sludge. Already concerns have been expressed by
some who have reviewed the proposed video narrative, that it fails to
critically review the health issues related to sludge.

The Biosolids Education Video Sub-committee is made up of the following
volunteers,drawn from WEAO's Biosolids Committee:

Vincent Nazareth, R.V Anderson Associates (416) 497-8600
Peter Nicol, CH2M Hill Canada (416) 499-0090
Stephen Nutt, XCG Consultants (519) 741-5774
Irwin Osinga, CH2M Hill Canada (416) 499-0090
Mark Rupke, City of Toronto (416) 392-5260

The WEAO is concerned that the public's concerns about health issues
related to sewage sludge may be based on misleading or incomplete
information.

The National Academy of Science and the WEAO report on Biosolids both
concluded that there is inadequate research on the pathogen risks posed

by sludge spreading. The National Farmers Union and the Canadian
Infectious Disease Society and the Sierra Club have all called for a
moratorium on the land
application of sewage sludge.

The public need to see responsible waste disposal
programs based on research and fact...not videos to promote sludge
application.

Maureen Reilly
Sierra Club of Canada
Eastern Canada Chapter
Water and Wastewater Campaign

Hamilton's East End Already Rejected Pellet Plant

The Hamilton Spectator
Forum politics, Monday, August 12, 2002, p. A09

East end already rejected pellet plant

Lynda Lukasik
The Hamilton Spectator

Managing our sewage sludge -- if it were only that simple and sweet smelling ...

Like most urban communities in Ontario, Hamilton continues to struggle with how best to manage sewage sludge. Over the years, the city has burned it, landfilled it and is now providing sludge to farmers to spread on agricultural fields. Last week, on this very page, an opinion article that read more like an advertisement aimed to
convince readers that the answer to our sludge woes is simple and straightforward -- transform the sludge into dry fertilizer pellets.

The pitch was upbeat and made the process sound so promising. How could anyone argue about an environmentally friendly solution to a rather messy problem?

Of course, readers must bear in mind that the author was upfront about being the vice-president of business development for American Water Services -- the company that wants to open a sewage sludge pellet plant in east Hamilton.

But solutions to problems like sludge are never this easy. In this instance, history must teach us something. Talk of a sludge pelletization plant is déjà vu for me and others in east Hamilton.

The leased location for the proposed pelletizing plant is a facility formerly operated by a company called Hamilton Bio-Conversion.

I got to know this operation very well in the late 1990s when it was inflicting horrible odour problems on east Hamilton neighbourhoods, including my own. At that time, the facility was running a fermentation process that transformed food waste into animal feed. The stench that wafted over into my neighbourhood has been described as smelling like warm barf.

Through city, Ministry of Environment and community pressure, Hamilton Bio-Conversion upgraded its odour control systems to state-of-the-art.

The severe odour in my neighbourhood disappeared. For business and industry located much closer to the plant, odour problems shifted from severe (there were reports of the odour making employees of Samuel Steel physically ill in the parking lot after work) to nuisance level, but they didn't disappear altogether.

We all thought the problem had been solved to a livable degree until the company came back with plans to add a second line for processing sewage sludge into pellets.

But information provided by the company revealed the odour from sewage sludge processing would be 10 times worse than the odour from food waste processing.

How could even a state-of-the-art system handle this kind of increase in stink? A concerted effort from the city of Hamilton, concerned citizens and area businesses and industries led to Hamilton Bio-Conversion's decision to drop its plans to establish a sludge pellet line.

Given the plant's proximity to other businesses and residential neighbourhoods, the expected odour from sludge processing made this an inappropriate activity for the area.

Just imagine my reaction to American Water Service's upbeat plug for a sewage sludge pelletizing line in this same facility! East Hamilton has considered this option and determined it is not an appropriate use for this area.

We are already heavily affected by other facilities in this end of the city. This one would only add to the existing odour burden.

But odour is not the only concern I have about sewage sludge, whether in pellet or ready to spread on the farm field form.

The reality is that current Hamilton sewage sludge is of questionable quality.

Hamilton is an industrial city with a penchant for discharging industrial waste and landfill leachate into its sewage treatment plant. It is a known fact that sewage sludge in any community contains problematic levels of a variety of heavy metals including lead, cadmium, arsenic and zinc. Heavy metal content has led to provincial government guidelines that dictate how much sludge can be spread on a given agricultural field and how often. Sludge also accumulates various organic chemical contaminants -- some that are known cancer-causing substances -- for which no guidelines exist.

So where does this leave Hamilton in its struggle to manage sludge? First, we need to realize that regardless of the "good news" story by a proponent of sludge pelletization, there are no easy solutions.

Any sludge processing initiative needs to be suitably located to minimize the impact on surrounding residents and businesses.

At a more fundamental level, effort needs to be directed at making our sludge safer to begin with. Many of the contaminants that go into the Woodward Avenue plant don't break down and, therefore, must go somewhere. Sludge serves as the final destination for a substantial amount of this nasty stuff, including heavy metals and organic chemical contaminants.

We must demand that the city review its present practices where landfill leachate and industrial discharges to the sewage treatment plant are concerned.

A safe sludge product will remain elusive until this happens.

Lynda Lukasik is an East Hamilton resident, an environmental activist, and founder of the Environment Hamilton citizens' organization. She is a freelance writer, and her views are her own. E-mail: lynda.lukasik at sympatico.ca

Model Terms of Reference for Biosolids Management Contractors

Model Terms of Reference for Biosolids Management Contractors Now Available

The Water Environment Association of Ontario's Biosolids Committee has prepared a Model Terms of Reference that can be used by municipalities to prequalify biosolids management contractors. The Model Terms of Reference are based on prequalification documents used successfully by Ontario municipalities to select a contractor to operate their biosolids land application programs.

The Model Terms of Reference can be downloaded at:
http://www.weao.org/events/doc/Model_Terms_of_Reference
_for_Contracting_Biosolids_Management%20.doc

---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Thorne, Coordinator
H2infO - The Water Information Network
590 Jarvis Street, Suite 200
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M4Y 2J4
P: (416) 392-1757
F: (416) 960-9944
E-mail: input at H2infO.org
Web: www.H2infO.org

Toronto Free Press Editorial

Full issue available at http://www.torontofreepress.com/archives/2002/ed80502.htm


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


August 5, 2002
EDITORIAL
Whistle needs blowing on biosolids
Even with proof positive that people exposed to fields fertilized with human excrement (biosolids) are becoming ill, and in some cases, even dying, the practice of fertilizing fields with biosolids not only continues, it's on the increase.

Bureaucrats have decided it's cheaper for farmers to fertilize their fields with human sludge, a process increasingly used in Canada, the United Stares and Western Europe.

Human sludge is also being used to fertilize lawns and gardens.

That means avoiding places where the sewer sludge is being applied is becoming more difficult for John Q. Public. Last May, a Medical Officer of Health for Ontario's Haliburton, Kawartha and Pine Ridge District, confirmed that sewer sludge spread on a nearby field in Percy Township caused a 10-month-old child to suffer adverse health consequences.

An 11-year-old boy from Osceola Mills, Pa., died of staphylococcal septicaemia. The boy had complained of a sore throat, headaches and boils on one leg and one arm several days after riding his motorbike through sewer sludge applied to a nearby field. The boy did not respond to antibiotics and died six days after the bacteria first traveled into his bloodstream.

In other cases, residents of nearby fields spread with the sludge reported having to destroy a number of cats, dogs and farm animals after they developed boils, following the application of sludge on nearby tracts of land.

Pathogens carried in dust blowing off fields treated with the sludge make going to the country a less than innocent pastime.

British Columbia spreads more than 70,000 tonnes of biosolids across its fields annually. It comes mostly from Vancouver's two million residents. However, new standards recently imposed by the province require that only pasteurized, Class A biosolids be used on land in B.C.

About 120,000 tonnes of sewage biosolids are spread on 5,000 to 6,000 acres of Ontario farmland each year, according to Eileen Smith, Manager of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle from the Ministry of the Environment. About 50,000 tonnes of the sludge is produced at Toronto's Ashbridges Bay Sewage Treatment Plant. (The one city politicians promised to have closed down by the year 2000). Half of the sludge is given to contracted haulers to be spread on fields. The other half is made into pelletized fertilizer or is incinerated. Toronto, which has no shortage of sewage sludge, is currently hauling its biosolids to the Republic Landfill site in Michigan.

Incredibly, Toronto, which had a pilot project pasteurizing biosolids, arbitrarily replaced the award-winning process back in 1997. The city chose to pass its sewer sludge into the willing hands of Terratec Environmental-a company now facing two cases under the Environmental Protection Act for applying sludge in disregard to the required setback distances, thus causing nearby residents to lose enjoyment of their properties.

Terratec, associated with Enron, continues to freely spread Toronto sludge on any farm that receives a Certificate of Approval from Ontario's Ministry of Environment.

Precious little of the dangers of pathogens from biosolids has been reported in the established media.

Indeed, if it weren't for dedicated biosolids environmentalist Maureen Reilly and a businessman, Toronto Free Press, one of the first news outlets to write about the sludge, wouldn't have known.

Emailed photographs of ailing farm animals are proof that farmers are worried about the spreading of sewer sludge on their fields.

Large, generously financed environmental groups like Greenpeace have been silent on the issue, leaving farmers and ordinary citizens to pick up the cause.

Many people in Ontario are still unaware of the dangers to health from fields fertilized by human excrement because as questionable as the process is, it's legal. How many average citizens understand `biosolids,' the name government bureaucrats gave to sewer sludge?

A potential major health hazard to average citizens across the land needs the microscope of limelight.

Peel Balks at Halton Sludge

Peel balks at Halton sludge
Contractor wants to dump treated sewage on Caledon farmland

Mike Funston
PEEL/HALTON BUREAU
Toronto Star
August 9, 2002

Peel Region council wants careful scrutiny of a proposal to dump municipal sewage sludge from Halton on to farmland at the headwaters of the Credit River.

"I don't know whether it's safe or not but we should have a full report on it," Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion said yesterday.

"We don't know what's in the sludge and whether it can contaminate the groundwater. We need an environmental assessment."

A motion expressing the region's concerns will be sent to Ontario's environment ministry.

An application has been made by a private contractor for Halton Region to dump the sludge, a by-product of the sewage treatment process, as fertilizer on a potato farm off St. Andrew's Road in Caledon.

The site feeds tributaries of the Credit River and the environmentally significant Star wetland, said area resident David Hughes, who is fighting the proposal. His property is immediately south of the site, which is within the Niagara Escarpment.

"This application raises some very basic questions about the adequacy of sludge dumping policy in Ontario," Hughes said. "In a post-Walkerton environment, this is not acceptable."

There was originally a proposal to dump Toronto sludge on the same site, but the ministry rejected it because that sludge was deemed to be too odorous. The application was then switched to Halton sludge, which undergoes a different treatment process.

Bruce Kitchen, Halton's director of engineering, said the region's sludge is of good quality, after going through primary and secondary treatment in digesters to neutralize bacteria and foul odours.

Most of the region's treated sludge is spread on Halton farms, but the contractor has the option of finding sites outside the region. It's popular with farmers because the sludge makes a nutrient-rich fertilizer that is supplied and spread for free, he said.

The environment ministry is reviewing its sewage sludge policies, said spokesperson Mark Rabbior.

The ministry regulates the process by issuing a certificate of approval for the spreading and hauling of sludge after a site inspection has been done. The certificate may contain restrictions on the spreading of sludge near watercourses and other limitations.

A maximum of eight tonnes per hectare of sludge may be spread every five years. Sludge is also tested for 11 metals, which must fall within the ministry's safety standards.

Wading in sewage; Sewage seeps onto Orono farm

http://www.durhamregion.com/dr/regions/clarington/v-printdurham/story/497159p-618078c.html


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


Wading in sewage; Sewage seeps onto Orono farm
Aug 6, 2002

Jacquie McInnes, Staff Writer

CLARINGTON - An Orono family is keeping watch on their wetland after thousands of gallons of sewage sludge flooded their property during heavy rains that pushed the biosolid application from a neighbouring farm.
The Ministry of Environment and Energy has called in its investigation and enforcement unit after attending the scene, according to MOE spokesman Mark Rabbior.

"The cattails are dying where it went into the wetland," says Jennifer Henderson, who owns the 115-acre property with her husband, Robert, a fourth-generation farmer. About 10 acres of wetland and woodlot were flooded with the sewage sludge, which was applied Friday, July 26, by a company owned by Skip Ambrose, says Mr. Rabbior. Mr. Ambrose did not return telephone messages left by Clarington This Week.

"We were told it wouldn't hurt the wetland because it is a natural filter but I don't want my turtles and ducks filtering sewage sludge," said Mrs. Henderson.

The ministry ordered Mr. Ambrose's company to send a clean-up crew to remove as much of the biosolid material as possible from the Henderson's property. The Region of Durham supervised the cleanup, said Mr. Rabbior.

In its investigation, the ministry will look at the application of the material and whether it was in compliance with spreading regulations.

The ministry has specific requirements for application as part of the certificate of approval process.

Biosolids, consisting of treated municipal sewage waste, are spread on farm fields as a nutrient in some circumstances.

However, there are strict regulations surrounding the applications including setbacks from waterways, soil composition, composition of the sludge and consideration of weather conditions that may create run-off, including rain.

Until test results return from the ministry lab, the ministry cannot comment further on the investigation, according to Mr. Rabbior.

Rules are urgently needed on sewage-sludge disposal

The following is an editorial that appeared in the August 2, 2002 Hamilton Spectator

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


Rules are urgently needed on sewage-sludge disposal

Is it safe to spread sewage sludge on farmland? The question is being asked with increasing frequency in light of new concerns expressed by experts in Canada and the United States. There isn't a smoking gun, in terms of documented evidence that directly links the widespread practice to health problems or environmental damage. Even so, reputable scientists are raising warning flags at a rate that's generating concern and unease. They worry that sludge contains metals, toxic chemicals, viruses, bacteria and other disease-causing agents to which people and animals may be exposed.

Although sludge is treated and tested, the adequacy of the checks and balances is another issue. Some experts are calling for a moratorium on spreading sludge from human and industrial wastes until the long-accepted practice is proven safe.

A moratorium, in Ontario at least, would be a major challenge to implement, given the massive quantities of sludge dispersed now. Municipalities rely on the practice as an alternative to landfilling or burning waste. Farmers use sludge as a convenient and efficient fertilizer. If cities like Hamilton or Toronto were to lose the agricultural market for sludge, where would it go? Neither landfilling nor incineration is attractive. Some experts believe sludge can work as composting, or as bedding for vegetation atop old mine tailings, but the feasibility is unknown.

There isn't any doubt that the senior levels of government must do more to address mounting uncertainty about the potential risks of sludge. Good information is vital in developing fail-safe regulations to protect people who live near fields spread with sludge, and the workers who apply it.

The evidence suggests that governments aren't moving quickly enough to assure that standards of testing and enforcement are where they should be. The lack of national standards for sludge is one example of what many observers see as a loose policy framework that leaves too much to chance.

Concern about the potential dangers of sludge in rural communities soared after the water contamination tragedy in Walkerton and Justice Dennis O'Connor's conclusion that better controls are needed on farm pollution from all sources.

Hamilton physician Coleman Rotstein, who heads the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society, supports a moratorium on sludge-spreading until we are "absolutely sure that's it safe."

In the United States, a panel of scientists recently said that country's sludge-disposal policies are based on outdated science.

For its part, the Ontario government promised in April to accelerate a review of its policies on the handling of sludge, including a look at the American findings. The Nutrient Management Act, designed in part to establish province-wide standards on sludge dispersal, was approved in June. But a timetable hasn't been set to complete the all-important regulations.

People who live next to sludge-treated fields aren't willing to run the risk of becoming sick as the result of a practice which they perceive as inherently unhealthy. We don't blame them.

If sludge-spreading is to continue, the provincial and federal governments must err on the side of safety.

-- Gord McNulty