Mega-Hog Farm Control Act, 2002

Bill 110, Mega-Hog Farm Control Act, 2002

This Private Member's Bill introduced by Jean-Marc Lalonde (Liberal MPP Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) received first reading on Wednesday, June 19, 2002.

It deems mega-hog farms to be identified as industrial purposes for the purposes of the official plan of the municipality where the farm is located. The operation of a mega-hog farm is not a normal farm practice under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

For more information on the Bill visit the Ontario Legislative Assembly page at http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/bills/110373.htm

THE CONTROVERSY OVER SPREADING SLUDGE ON FARMERS FIELDS

HE CONTROVERSY OVER SPREADING SLUDGE ON FARMERS FIELDS
September 16, 2002
CBC Radio Transcripts

JILL DEMPSEY: And now tonight's feature report. Across Canada, questions are growing about the practice of fertilizing farm land with sewage sludge. Provinces, waste companies and food farmers insist the spreading of treated human waste is well regulated and causes little risk to the environment or people's health. But environmentalists, some scientists, and people living in rural areas, say more research is needed to ensure people's health isn't being put at risk. In the meantime, they argue the practice should be stopped. Ontario, where the deadly tainted water tragedy in Walkerton is still fresh in people's minds, spreads
more sludge than any other province. And as Margo Kelly reports, it's in Ontario where the issue is sparking the most debate.

MARGO KELLY (Reporter): An hour's drive northwest of Toronto, Alvin Ward cuts hay on his farm in the Caledon Hills, an area dotted with expensive country homes and horse farms. He climbs down from his swather and explains why he wants to spread sewage sludge on his land.

ALVIN WARD (Farmer): Because it's free. I don't have hardly any livestock now to make barnyard manure, and I've got to buy dry fertilizer just to do the job, and it's expensive.

KELLY: Sewage sludge is processed human sewage with most of the water removed. Sludge is free because municipalities pay private companies to spread it on farmers' land. It's a practice that's been around for decades, but it's being used increasingly in Canada, the US and Europe as the alternatives, incinerating or dumping the sludge in landfills, become more costly and unpopular. Alvin Ward wants to use the sludge on 95 acres where he plans to grow barley, oats, wheat and potatoes. He's already experimented with sludge on fields about half that size.

WARD: It seems to work fine what I've used. It just greens things right up and produced like everything.

KELLY: He's convinced it's safe. His daughter Shawna adds that the rules for spreading sewage sludge are strict.

SHAWNA WARD (Farmer's Daughter): There's boundary from a well, a dug well, and there's boundaries from springs. There's a lot of restrictions.

KELLY: But the Ward's neighbour, David Hughes, doesn't think much of those restrictions, or the way sludge spreading is monitored or enforced in Ontario.

DAVID HUGHES (Farmer's Neighbour): It's the most lax house of cards I've ever encountered in my life.

KELLY: Hughes stands beside his trout pond and looks up the hill to the Ward's farm where the sludge may soon be spread if the province approves
the waste company's application. In rubber boots, he wades into springs he's terrified will become contaminated.

HUGHES: These cold springs in turn end up taking the Credit River which is, which has been cleaned up so incredibly from decades ago, and, you know, if we start putting unknown chemical products up gradient coming out the side of the springs, it's going to end up in the Credit River. It's only a matter of time.

KELLY: Hughes is also worried his well water could become contaminated and that heavy metals, chemicals and bacteria such as e-coli will enter the food chain and make people sick. He dismisses assurances from governments and the waste industry that it's safe.

HUGHES: I went on a sludge tour recently, organized by the industry, and
I
asked them, like, what do you test for. And they test for ammonium,
nitrates, phosphorous, a lot of metals, and volatile solids. But when I
asked them point blank, do you test for dioxins? No. Do you test for
PCB's?
No. Do you test for furons? No. Do you test for oil and gas? No. Do you
test
for paint thinners? No.
KELLY: Just west of Toronto, a tanker truck fills up with a load of
liquid
sewage sludge at a waste treatment plant in Halton region. Halton gets
rid
of almost all its sludge by spreading it on fields. A practice it
started
more than twenty years ago. Peter Mordon, who oversees bio-solid waste
for
the region, insists the process is safe, and that there is scientific
research to back that up. He says the waste is heated and distilled in
big
tanks for at least fifteen days.
PETER MORDON: Almost all the bacteria and the pathogens in the material
are
eliminated through this process. But some do survive. But that's why we
have
Ontario guidelines, and we have Ontario regulations that control.
They've
actually put up barriers so that the public is safe and the environment
is
safe.
KELLY: But Mordon confirms the provincial guidelines don't require that
sludge be tested for PCBs or other toxins, and mistakes do happen. For
example, earlier this month, the waste company Terretech was charged for

spreading sludge improperly in Cambridge, Ontario, allowing waste
contaminated with e- coli and streptococci to run in the direction of a
creek. That kind of hazard is fuelling opposition to the spreading
of sewage sludge. The Canadian Infectious Disease Society has called for
a
moratorium on the spreading of sludge until more research has been done.

Ottawa and three other municipalities in Ontario have done the same. And
in
the US, the National Academy of Sciences warned that not enough is known

about the risks of sludge to human health. Waste company executive Phil
Sidwa of Terretech insists there's no proof the practice has made people

ill. But Maureen Riley of the Sierra Club of Canada disagrees.
MAUREEN RILEY (Sierra Club of Canada): There are people begging for
health
assessments who live next to sludge spreading sites and are extremely
sick.
The complaints that are reported are rashes, respiratory difficulty,
diarrhea, dizziness, headaches, parasites, and other gastrointestinal
ailments.
KELLY: Governments are responding to the concerns. Ontario is conducting

hearings on a new Nutrient Management Act. And in five years, it will
ban
the spreading of untreated sewage from sceptic systems.
BC recently became the first jurisdiction in North America to require
that
sludge be pasteurized before it is spread in watershed areas. But back
on
his farm in Caldeon, Alvin Ward shakes his head and wonders what all the

fuss is about.
ALVIN WARD: I'm not doing anybody any harm. And the Walkerton thing was
a
tragedy, but it was, I feel, negligence there.
KELLY: Ward's daughter Shawna says in the end sewage sludge has to go
somewhere, and putting it to use on fields, in her opinion, is the best
option.
SHAWNA WARD: They've got to get rid of it regardless, whether it goes to
the
fields or whether it goes to landfill or wherever.
KELLY: But others argue it's safer to err on the side of caution, and as

resistance to sewage sludge grows, municipalities that have banked on
the
practice are finding themselves with more and more waste and fewer
places to
put it. Margo Kelly, CBC News, Caledon.

Company charged with dumping sludge

Company charged with dumping sludge; Sewage unloaded illegally on field, ministry alleges
Toronto Star
September 17, 2002

One of Ontario's largest haulers of sewage sludge has been charged under the province's Environmental Protection Act.

Hamilton-based Terratech Environmental is scheduled to appear in court here Oct. 15.

The environment ministry says Terratech violated its certificate of approval when it dumped tonnes of sewage sludge on a field on Beaverdale Rd. in Cambridge between Nov. 28 and Dec. 5, 2001.

The company was charged because it applied the waste to farmland at a place where the land slopes toward a small creek and at a time of year when the sludge could drain to the creek, ministry spokesperson John Steele said.

Steele said sewage sludge often has high counts of E. coli and other bacteria.

"Even though sewage is treated, the process wouldn't remove bacteria," he said. "The sewage treatment plants are not designed to do that."

The certificate of approval issued by the ministry prohibited sludge from being spread in the winter, during a rainfall or on a slope, Steele said.

Proponents of spreading sewage sludge on farm fields say it is a good way to add nutrients to the land and, if done properly, has little or no impact on the environment.

But critics say the haulers often violate provincial guidelines and spread the material too close to water courses, and at times of the year when it shouldn't be applied.

Terratech has a contract to haul sludge from Waterloo Region's sewage treatment plants. About half of the sludge is taken to farms within the region and the rest to farms outside of the area.

No slouching on sludge

September 13, 2002

No slouching on sludge

By Lana MacEachern
newglasgow

When you say "organic fertilizer," most people probably think of such things as cow manure or bone meal.

But a wastewater treatment plant in Pictou County is hoping to improve its ability to treat and process human byproducts, with a view toward making the waste more appealing as a soil additive.

Graham MacKinnon, site supervisor at the East River Pollution Abatement System plant, said ERPAS has applied for funding to acquire more equipment so it can treat the residual sludge separated from wastewater to a Class 2 level.

Under Class 2 standards, sludge goes through a thermal blender where lime is added to kill pathogens. It then undergoes further treatment in a pasteurization vessel, where it is heated to 70 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes.

"The pathogens are completely eliminated," said MacKinnon.

Sludge currently emerges from the treatment plant resembling a loose, wet mud, with a make-up of 80 per cent water and 20 per cent solid. More solid than liquid manure, it can be shovelled onto a truck.

ERPAS is in the middle of a five-year contract with Archibalds' farm in East River St. Marys, which buys the sludge and injects it into the soil as fertilizer, said MacKinnon. The farming operation uses all of the product from the plant, about 25,000 to 30,000 tons a year.

"It always has been in my mind, when that (contract) is ended, to try to have some other options and the only way to have other options is to make the product better," he said.

MacKinnon said there are currently no operations using the same Class 2 technology that ERPAS hopes to acquire in Nova Scotia. There are about 60 such operations worldwide, with the nearest in Canada being in Victoria, B.C. He and others from the RSD2 committee ? a group of the Pictou County District Planning Commission which looks after waste treatment, with representatives from the participating towns and county ? have visited similar Class 2 plants in Kentucky and Indiana.

There are other methods of treating residual sludge to a Class 2 level besides lime and heat, but after looking into the issue for about a year, locals have decided this is the method they want. MacKinnon said it will produce the same quality product for a lower cost than other methods.

He estimates it would cost $1 million to $2 million to get the necessary equipment and construct an extension to the existing plant to house it. The committee has applied for funding through the municipal-provincial-federal infrastructure program and also through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The infrastructure program doesn't appear to be a likely source of funding at this time, he said, but the FCM has an interest in "innovative" projects and responded favourably. The committee is in the process of adding an addendum to its application outlining the exact process it wants to use, and MacKinnon hopes they might receive a decision by the end of the year.

Once the funding for the project is secured and the equipment acquired, the plant can look at how it will market the biosolids. While the product could feasibly be used on backyard gardens and flowerbeds, it would probably make more sense to try to find a large-scale customer, he said.

© Copyright 2002 New Glasgow Evening News
Copyright © 2002 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp. All rights reserved.

Hay Bay Genetics fined $10,000 +

September 13/2002

Hay Bay Genetics fined $10,000 +
by Lake Ontario Keeper

On Monday, September 9, 2002, Hay Bay Genetics and the company's Farm Manager Mark Davis were each fined $5,000 after being convicted of
violating pollution prevention sections of the Fisheries Act last February.

In addition to the $10,000 fine, the Court also awarded $25,000 to the Cataraqui Conservation Authority.

The charges related to pollution incidents which occurred on September 22nd, November 4th and December 4th, 1998 when the company permitted the deposit of barnyard storm sewer effluent in an area and under conditions whereby the effluent could enter Lake Ontario's Bay of Quinte. It was also found that the farm and its officers failed to comply with a Direction issued by Environment Canada which required taking measures to counteract, mitigate or remedy the adverse effects of such deposits.

Bill 81 Will Set Up Charter Challenges

>From Agrinewsinteractive (http://www.agrinewsinteractive.com) ...

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


BILL 81 WILL SET UP CHARTER CHALLENGES
Ottawa lawyer sees too much power for enforcement officers

EMBRUN - At least one section of the Nutrient Management Act and its regulations now being refined by the provincial government will 'undoubtedly be challenged as a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms'.

That's the professional opinion of an Ottawa lawyer with extensive experience in agricultural issues who reviewed the legislation and passed on his impressions to about 60 farmers gathered in Embrun Aug. 27.

A partner with Nelligan O'Brien Payne, lawyer Ron Caza was referring to the enforcement section of the new act which gives 'too much power' to the team of provincial officers which will be policing compliance with the law and its regulations expected to be finalized by next March.

Caza called it the most 'worrisome' part of the act, adding it creates a 'certain vulnerability' for Ontario's farming community.

'They'll have a lot of power... more than police officers in some situations,' Caza told his disgruntled listeners, explaining that without a warrant or any kind of a court order, the enforcement team will be able to enter and inspect any land or premises, including vehicles.

In addition, nutrient management officers can use reasonable force, can dispose of items seized and can call in reinforcements in the form of police departments.

'That's huge, huge power,' Caza repeated, adding the officers - expected to be employed by MOE - won't have to give a valid reason for suspecting wrong doing under the act before conducting a search.

Arranged after the lawyer determined many farmers would be in the dark about the small print of the act, Caza's one-hour briefing left many audience members reeling. The lawyer told The AgriNews he had anticipated a turnout of 10-15 registrants; the much larger number indicated 'a lot of concern' on the part of the farming community.

'What we hope is, as a result of the overview, people now have a much better idea of how this legislation will affect their farming operations.'

In questions after the session, farmers indicated worries about policing, the paperwork burden they'll be expected to handle, and costs associated with meeting the new standards... estimated in one study at $20,000-$50,0000 per farmer.

'There won't be much time left to do our work,' one farmer commented after hearing about the administrative requirements.

To help prevent future environmental calamities such as Walkerton, Caza said it was his impression the provincial government intends through the legislation and companion regulations to 'set up controls for every aspect of farming.'

'You're going to need qualifications to go on doing what you've been doing,' the lawyer said of the impact of new standards such as compulsory Nutrient Management Plans on current farming practices. On the other hand, for many competent farmers, complying with new standards will be merely formalizing what they already have in place.

He urged his listeners to get going now with measures to adhere to new requirements, rather than wait until the law is being enforced by the roving band of provincial officers who are going to expect them to account for every aspect of their nutrient management activities.

'In the end, the government will expect a plan showing you're able to deal with all manure produced.'

As a lawyer, Caza said, the Nutrient Management Act was a surprise to read: 'It gives farmers a lot of responsibilities. Usually, a law prevents people from doing things; here, a burden is imposed.'

While there's an appeal process attached to the legislation, a farmer can't continue to do what he's been doing after being charged with a violation. A supervising director will be empowered to eliminate whatever is seen to be causing adverse effects on the environment. On the upside, a compliance order issued by an enforcement officer must be reviewed by a director within seven days of such a request being made, which won't leave a farmer in limbo for too long.

'Here's where the fun starts,' Caza cracked. 'If a farmer is issued a compliance order and the work isn't done, a director can hire someone to do it - say move a manure pile - and bill the farmer. And if he doesn't pay the bill, the law provides for the cost to be added to local property taxes.'

Caza once again had audience members clucking and shaking their heads when he got into penalty provisions. First offences under the legislation can bring fines of up to $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for corporations... per day. Should illegal operations continue, there's provision for ministerial injunctions through the Superior Court of
Ontario, including possible jail sentences.

At the end of the day, Caza reminded, the law is the law and farmers will have to live with it. The ultimate objective of protecting the environment is a useful one, he said: 'Farmers will have to start thinking if their decisions will have an impact on the environment.'

Ministry Still Reviewing Port Hope Biosolids By-law

Ministry still reviewing bylaw

Port Hope Evening Guide
Thu 05 Sep 2002
Page: 3
Section: Local
Byline: Andy Johnson

A bylaw restricting use of biosolids is still being reviewed by the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MoE).

Bruce Hancock, the MoE's Peterborough district manager, said no decisions have been made at this point about the bylaw.

It was passed by Port Hope council on Aug. 1.

The MoE is reviewing similar bylaws passed by several other municipalities in southwestern Ontario and no decisions have been made on them either, Mr. Hancock said.

"What we're reviewing is the implications of what the Municipality of Port Hope did in passing this bylaw," Mr. Hancock said.

Previously, Mr. Hancock stated the MoE's legal consultants were reviewing Port Hope's bylaw, and he awaits their recommendation on what further action, if any, is necessary.

"At this time no decisions have been made," he said.

Port Hope's bylaw places certain restrictions on the use of biosolids for agricultural purposes in Ward 2, the former Hope Township.

The bylaw resulted from the MoE's approval of applications made by Terratec Environmental Ltd. to use biosolids on two properties in Ward 2.