Tuesday, October 29, 2002

Melancthon Twp. Sludge Bylaw April/02

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MELANCTHON

BY-LAW NO. - 2002


BIOSOLIDS BY-LAW




Background Recitals


1. This by-law is enacted pursuant to all the enabling provisions of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, the principal sections of which provide as follows:

102. Every council may pass such by-laws and make such regulations for the health, safety, morality and welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality in matters not specifically provided for by this Act and for governing the conduct of its members as may be deemed expedient and are not contrary to law.

210. By-laws may be passed by the councils of local municipalities:

140. For prohibiting and regulating public nuisances, including matters that, in the opinion of council, are or could become or cause public nuisances and the opinion of council, if arrived at in good faith, is not subject to review by any court.

172. For authorizing the pulling down or removal, at the expense of the owner, of any building or erection constructed, altered, repaired or placed in contravention of the by-law.

326. Where a council has authority to direct or require by by-law or otherwise that any matter or thing be done, the council may by the same or by another by-law direct that, in default of its being done by the person directed or required to do it, such matter or thing shall be done at the person's expense, and the corporation may recover the expense incurred in doing it by action, or the same may be recovered in like manner as municipal taxes, or the council may provide that the expense incurred by it, with interest, shall be payable by such person in annual instalments not exceeding ten years and may borrow money to cover such expense by the issue of debentures of the corporation payable in not more than ten years.


2. This by-law is also enacted pursuant to all the enabling sections of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, the principal sections of which provide as follows:

100. (1) Where a pollutant is spilled and causes or is likely to cause an adverse effect,
(a) a municipality;
(b) a regional municipality; and
(c) a person or a member of a class of persons designated by the regulations,
or any one or more of them, may do everything practicable to prevent, eliminate and ameliorate the adverse effects and to restore the natural environment.

(2) A municipality or regional municipality or a person or member of a class of persons designated by the regulations acting under subsection (1) or an employee or agent of any of them so acting has the rights of a person under section 95 and, if acting in good faith and in a reasonable manner, the immunity conferred on a person by section 98.

(3) A municipality or regional municipality or a person or a member of a class of persons designated by the regulations acting under subsection (1) must,
(a) co-ordinate efforts with;
(b) make use of the expertise of; and
(c) not impede,
a person carrying out a duty, order or direction under this Part.

(4) A municipality, a regional municipality or a person or member of a class of persons designated by the regulations has the right to compensation from the owner of the pollutant and the person having control of the pollutant for all reasonable cost and expense incurred in acting under subsection (1).

(5) The right to compensation under subsection (4) may be enforced by action in a court of competent jurisdiction.

(6) Where the right to compensation under subsection (4) arises, subsections 99 (6) to (14) apply with necessary modifications. R.S.O. 1990, c._E.19, s._100.


3. During the past several years biosolids have been applied to lands within the Township, without any input or regulation by the Township:

4. The Council of the Township has considered the documentation provided to Council by the Ministry of Environment in connection with biosolid applications within the Township;

5. The Council of the Township has considered the Guidelines for the Utilization of Biosolids and other Wastes on Agricultural Land, published by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs in connection with biosolids;

6. The Council of the Township has considered the legitimate expectations of the Township farming community to utilize biosolids in a safe manner;

7. The Township has participated in the development of AEMOT Groundwater Management Plan and Council has determined that groundwater resources in the Township are in need of protection;

8. The Aquifer Vulnerability Map attached to this by-law is based on data in the AEMOT Groundwater Plan as applicable to the Township, with the scale of the map configured for the purposes of this by-law to enable land use regulation;

9. The Council of the Township has conducted several public meetings in connection with biosolids and has received submissions from the public in connection with biosolids;

10. The Council of the Township has determined that while Certificates of Approval are required for the application of biosolids, stricter requirements are needed for the protection of the inhabitants of the Township;

11. The Council of the Township has, in good faith, determined that this by-law is required to protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Township;







NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF MELANCTHON BY THE MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL THEREOF ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:





1. Definitions

For the purposes of this bylaw the following definitions shall govern:

(a) “Application Areas” means

(1) lands zoned General Agricultural in the comprehensive Township Zoning by-law (as amended from time to time),

(2) which are designated as Low Category of General Aquifer Vulnerability on the attached Schedule “A”, and

(3) for which there is an Environmental Farm Plan,


but which exclude areas that

(4) are tile drained
(5) are within 250 metres of a residence (whether on or off the lands)
(6) are within 1,000 metres of lands zoned Hamlet Residential, Small Lot Estate Residential, Commercial or Open Space Conservation in the comprehensive Township Zoning By-law (as amended from time to time) or in the similar zoning by-law of the neighbouring municipality
(7) are within 15 metres of drilled wells exceeding 15 metres in depth, with a watertight casing to depth of 6 metres
(8) are within 90 metres of any other wells
(9) are within 200 metres of a water body where the maximum sustained slope is less than 6% on the lands
(10) have a maximum sustained slope of 6% or greater
(11) are vertically within 1.5 metres of bedrock
(12) are vertically within 0.9 metres of the high ground water table
(13) consist of soils having a pH less than 6

or fit into any combination of the above categories.


(b) “biosolid” means waste that is predominantly organic in composition and has been treated by aerobic or anaerobic digestion, or other means of stabilization, and includes sewage residue from sewage works that are subject to the provisions of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

(c) “Certificate of Approval” means a valid, subsisting Certificate of Approval, issued under the Environmental Protection Act for the spreading of biosolids, in respect of the lands in question.

(d) “Council” means the council of The Corporation of the Township of Melancthon.

(e) “Environmental Farm Plan” means the document by that name developed and provided by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, which has been completed by the applicant in accordance with the standards prescribed by the document, which has been the subject of peer reviews and which has been implemented in accordance with the peer reviews.

(f) “lands” includes lands covered by water.

(g) “maximum sustained slope” means the slope measured along the surface for a distance of 10 metres.

(h) “Melancthon” means The Corporation of the Township of Melancthon.

(i) “person controlling the lands” means all the persons exercising control. “Control” includes both legal or de facto control. “Person” includes principal, agent, employer and employee. The inclusion of one person does not mean the exclusion of another person. By way of example, the definition includes a mortgagee, receiver, trustee in bankruptcy and the person doing the actual physical work on the lands.

(j) “responsible person” means, jointly and severally, the owner of the lands on which biosolids have been spread or for which there is a Certificate of Approval, the person controlling the lands, the person spreading biosolids on the lands and the person allowing the spreading of biosolids on the lands.

(k) "restore the natural environment", when used with reference to the spreading of biosolids, means restore all forms of life, physical conditions, the natural environment and things existing immediately before the spreading of the biosolids that are affected or that may reasonably be expected to be affected by the biosolids, and "restoration of the natural environment", when used with reference to a spill of a pollutant, has a corresponding meaning. It is a part of the restoration to prevent, eliminate and ameliorate the adverse effects of the spreading of biosolids.

(l) “Township” means The Corporation of the Township of Melancthon.

(m) “water body” includes a natural watercourse, open municipal drain, pond, lake, spring, wetland, catch-basin, hickenbottom or other perforated pipe riser device to drainage tiles or closed-in municipal drains.



2. Finding of Public Nuisance

Council, acting in good faith, finds that the application of biosolids to lands in the Township is or could be a public nuisance.



3. Prohibition of Biosolid Application

(a) Except in Application Areas no person shall apply biosolids to lands in the Township.

(b) Except in Application Areas no owner, occupant or person controlling lands in the Township shall allow the application of biosolids to lands owned, occupied or controlled by the person.

(c) No person shall apply biosolids to lands in Application Areas without first filing with the Township a Certificate of Approval in connection with the proposed application, together with copies of all current supporting tests and reports underlying the Certificate of Approval, and the Farm Environmental Plan.

(d) No owner, occupant or person controlling lands in Application Areas shall allow the application of biosolids to lands in Application Areas without first filing with the Township a Certificate of Approval in connection with the proposed application, together with copies of all supporting tests and reports underlying the Certificate of Approval, and the Farm Environmental Plan.


4. Regulation of Biosolid Application

(a) In Application Areas no person shall apply biosolids or shall allow the application of biosolids, unless 14 days’ prior written notice of the actual date of the application of biosolids had been given to the owners and tenants of all lands within 2 kms of the application site. Proof of service of notice shall be filed with the Township at least seven days prior to the application of biosolids. The purpose of this provision is to allow neighbours to make pre-application tests of their property and water.

(b) No person shall apply biosolids or shall allow the application of biosolids from vehicles or containers which are standing or parked on public roads. All applications shall take place from vehicles or containers standing or parked on the property to which the biosolids are applied. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the application of biosolids over road ditches and water bodies.

(c) No person shall apply biosolids or shall allow the application of biosolids to lands that at the time of application are impervious, frozen, snow-covered or water saturated.

(d) No person shall apply biosolids or shall allow the application of biosolids to lands that at the time of application are used for root crops, vegetables or dairy or beef cattle grazing.

(e) No person shall apply biosolids or shall allow the application of biosolids to lands during precipitation.

(f) No person shall apply biosolids or shall allow the application of biosolids to lands during wind in excess of 20 kms/hr.

(g) No person shall apply biosolids or shall allow the application of biosolids to lands in excess of the quantities permitted by the Certificate of Approval.

(h) The person applying biosolids and the person allowing the application of biosolids shall work the biosolids into the lands within 12 hours of the application of biosolids.


5. Restoration of the Natural Environment

(a) Any person may apply to Council to require the responsible person to provide an environmental audit to determine if a restoration of the natural environment, including lands, water bodies and/or off-site lands and water bodies is required as a result of the spreading of biosolids in the Township.

(b) Council may refuse to hold a hearing on the person’s request and refuse the request.

(c) In the event that Council decides to hold a hearing on the person’s request, Council shall give written notice of the hearing to the applicant, the appropriate Conservation Authority, the responsible persons and every owner of property adjacent to the lands where biosolids have been applied, and Council shall hold a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and make a determination in regard to an environmental audit. The determination shall deal with the nature, type and extent of the audit (including the areas covered), and the financial responsibilities for the audit. Council shall make no determination against a person who was not given notice of the hearing.

(d) In the event the persons ordered to do so do not forthwith obtain the environmental audit and provide a copy to Council, Council may obtain one at the expense of the persons so ordered, and the total cost of such audit together with interest at 12% per annum shall be borne by the persons who were so ordered. The total amount shall be added to the tax bill of the lands whereupon such amount shall be conclusively deemed as tax arrears and may be collected in the same manner as tax arrears.

(e) After written notice as provided above, Council shall hold a hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and make a determination as to whether restoration of the natural environment should take place based upon the environmental audit. The determination shall decide on the need for the restoration, the restoration to be effected and the persons responsible for the work of restoration and the cost of restoration. In coming to a decision Council shall consider the original condition of the lands and water bodies, their current conditions and the expense and difficulty in the various degrees of restoration that may be ordered. Council shall make no determination against a person who was not given notice of the hearing.

(f) Council shall give written notice of its determination to the persons named in the determination.

(g) The persons required by the notice shall forthwith carry out the restoration in accordance with Council’s determination.

(h) If the persons required by the determination fail to comply with the determination, then the Township may without further notice undertake the work referred to in the determination and the total cost of such work including all professional and administrative fees together with interest at 12% per annum shall be borne by the person to whom notice was given. The total amount shall be added to the tax bill of the lands whereupon such amount shall be conclusively deemed as tax arrears and may be collected in the same manner as tax arrears.

(i) Sub-sections 5.(d), 5.(h) shall not limit the authority of the Township to collect the amounts in question in any other way authorized by law.



6. Offence

(a) Any person who contravenes Section s 3.(a), 3.(b), 3.(c), 3.(d), 4.(a), 4.(b), 4.(c), 4.(d), 4.(e), 4.(f), 4.(f), 4.(g), 4.(h), 5.(g) of this by-law shall be guilty of an offence and is subject to the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act.

(b) Each day that a person contravenes a provision of this by-law shall be deemed to constitute a separate offence.



7. General

(a) Where in this by-law the context so requires, words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular, and words importing the masculine gender include feminine and neuter gender.

(b) Any written notice shall be effective if given to the person at the address shown on the Township's assessment rolls, or the address otherwise provided to the Township by the person concerned, or the address on record with the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Consumer and Business Services or the address in any public telephone book. A written notice shall be given by pre-paid registered mail. The effective date of the notice shall be the third day after its mailing.

(c) Any portion of this by-law found to be invalid shall be severed, and the balance of the by-law shall be deemed to be valid and enforceable and shall construed without reference to the invalid portions.



PASSED IN OPEN COUNCIL THIS day of April, 2002





Clerk Reeve, Head of Council


By-Law read a first and second time this day of April, 2002

By-Law read a third time this day of April, 2002.

Friday, October 18, 2002

Hamilton Ontario - planned sludge plant open house

The Hamilton Spectator News
Friday, October 18, 2002, p. A10
Thin crowd visits open house for planned sludge plant
Eric McGuinness, The Hamilton Spectator
American Water, the company that runs Hamilton's water and sewage treatment plants, says it can use a shut-down Brampton Street factory to turn sewage sludge into fertilizer without nuisance odours, air pollution or noise. It presented the plan at a sparsely attended open house Wednesday night. Zen Matwiyiw, who lives on Waterloo Street, complained that too few people knew about the event. Jennette Lukasik, a Mountain resident, questioned the safety of the fertilizer. A number of others just looked and listened. Company officials said notices went to homes in the surrounding area as well as to 70 area industries and 100 neighbourhood organizations.
A few of those who turned up were unhappy shareholders in Thermo-Tech, now based in Malaysia, which abandoned the plant that once turned waste food into animal feed. Before closing a year ago, Thermo-Tech installed a storey-high, 21-metre long, gas-fired dryer, a pelletizer and a thermal-oxidation air cleaner that have never been used. American Water is leasing those facilities with an eye to processing sludge. To do so, it will have to apply to the Ministry of the Environment to amend the plant's certificate of approval and obtain Canadian Food Inspection Agency approval for its fertilizer labels.
American Water has spent two months cleaning the plant but hasn't touched several large fermentation tanks still filled with food waste slurry. Don Hoekstra, American Water's pellet expert, said the company built and runs a Windsor plant producing fertilizer sold for use on row crops, golf courses and sod farms in Essex County and Chatham-Kent.
The Hamilton plant would have a capacity to accept 200 tonnes a day -- seven or eight truckloads -- of damp sludge, which would pass through the dryer on a stainless-steel belt, exposed for 45 minutes to a temperature of 138 C -- hot enough to sterilize medical equipment and kill any harmful bacteria. The resulting dry pellets will weigh 60 tonnes, enough to fill two trucks.
Hoekstra said the air cleaner will incinerate any organic, odour-causing gases. The first potential customer is the Niagara region, which Hoekstra said is interested in drying 25 per cent of its sludge rather than spreading it directly on farm fields. The Burlington Skyway plant and Hamilton's Woodward Avenue plant are other possible sources. Pellets are lighter and cheaper to transport than liquid sludge, which is 96 per cent water, or partly dry sludge cake at 70 per cent water.
Fred Eisenberger, port authority chairman, and Burlington's Quorum Communications have been hired to help American Water promote its plan. You can contact Eric McGuinness at emcguinness@thespec.com or at 905-526-4650.

Thursday, October 17, 2002

CBC News: Infections linked to use of sewage sludge as fertilizer

Wednesday, October 16, 2002

Press Release: Problems with Pellets

Sewage Sludge Pellets Proposed at Hamilton Thermo Tech Plant:
Pellets may be a risk to neighbourhood and food chain

The controversial waste drying plant Thermo Tech in Hamilton is being proposed for drying sewage sludge into pellets. The plant, which was formerly used for drying food waste into animal feed was plagued with odour complaints and fires, closed last September. Now American Water Services is proposing to use the facility to dry sewage sludge into small pellets for use as a fertilizer ammendment.

Residents near the plant are concerned about odours and the potential for fires at the plant. "Sewage sludge can pose a fire hazard due to the tendency of sewage sludge pellets to go into spontaneous combustion if they become damp," says Maureen Reilly, sewage sludge expert with Sierra Club of Canada. "Toronto's sewage pellet plant and the Windsor pellet plant have had fires and explosion problems with their sludge pellet operations. Sewage sludge also contains high levels of heavy metals and dioxins, and when these burn, the resulting emissions can pose a serious risk to human health. Where will these pellets be stored?"


Other concerns about sewage sludge pellets relate to their use as fertilizer, since the sewage sludge pellets, which are made up of everything industry and the public put down a drain, normally have much higher levels of heavy metal contamination than manure or other fertilizers. " Hamilton sewage sludge has about 1,350 parts per million copper, sometimes more than 1,800 parts per million, while manure has about 62 parts per million. Sludge pellets can lead to a build up of toxic metals in soil and food," Reilly explains.

When sewage sludge is applied to farm fields in its wet or sludge state, it is controlled as a waste material by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. However, once the sewer sludge is dried into pellets, it may be considered a 'product' by the Province who leave it to be regulated by the federal Fertilizer Act.

"There is a real disjunction between federal and provincial law. These pellets can slip through holes in the regulatory framework," explains Reilly. "The wet sewage sludge is regulated as a waste and can only be applied once every five years in Ontario, so that the heavy metals and chemicals don't build up rapidly in the receiving soil. However, if the same sludge is dried, there is no regulatory agency that can prevent its application every year, or prevent dumping on farm fields. Who will be checking to see if receiving farms or gardens exceed the contaminant criteria in the Contaminated Site Guidelines?."

Other cities that have tried making sewage sludge pellets found there is no market for the final product. Smith Falls has stopped making pellets, and the City of Toronto, after spending millions of dollars on building the pellet plant now has to pay a company more than $13 per tonne to take the pellets off their hands.

"Who exactly is in the market for contaminated fertilizer?" asks Maureen Reilly. "Why charge the taxpayer to dry sludge into a 'product' with lower levels of farm nutrient than the original sludge? What farmer will pay for 'dried sludge fertilizer' when they can get wet sludge for free from a municipal sewage treatment plant?"

Recently a report from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency showed that dioxin contamination in Canadian food is much higher than food in Europe. "Using sewage sludge and sewage sludge pellets on farms, home gardens, and grazing land can lead to higher levels of chemicals in our food, particularly meat and milk," says Reilly.

American Water Works is holding a tour of the proposed sludge drying plant tonight from 6:30pm to 8:30 pm at the Thermo Tech plant in East Hamilton (across from SWARU)

American Water Services has not yet applied to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to dry sludge at the plant.



For more information contact:

Maureen Reilly
Sierra Club of Canada
Eastern Ontario Chapter
Water Quality Coordinator
416 922-4099

Tuesday, October 15, 2002

Hamilton Sludge Pellet plant tour

For Immediate Release


Public Invited to Open House for
Proposed Pelletizer


Homeowners, businesses, and
citizens are invited to tour
proposed pelletizer plant and ask
questions of the facility's management


HAMILTON, Ontario, October 9, 2002 ---- American Water Services Canada
Corporation (AWSC) is
inviting the public to an Open House at its proposed fertilizer plant at

2380 Brampton Street in Hamilton
on Wednesday, October 16 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. Senior management
from AWSC will be on-hand
to take the public through the proposed facility and answer any
questions they might have.

"We invite our neighbours to meet with us and discuss any concerns they

may have," said Phil Sidhwa,
Vice President, AWSC. "We are excited about the opportunity to offer
our municipal clients this new
option for treated biosolids. We want to introduce ourselves to the
community and answer their
questions first-hand."

American Water Services has been engaged in water and wastewater
utilities operations for more than
50 years and operates over 1,300 large and small facilities throughout
North America. AWSC provides a
broad range of services including: water and wastewater operations and
maintenance; engineering
services; biosolids management; underground infrastructure services; and

carbon regeneration.



- 30 -

For further information contact:



Phil Sidhwa, Vice President, American Water Services Canada Corporation
(905) 572-5908

Thursday, October 10, 2002

ECO Annual Report: Sound-Sorb Berms

Below are excerpts from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario's Annual Report for 2001-2002 regarding Sound-Sorb berms in Ontario.
http://www.eco.on.ca/english/newsrel/02sep26a.htm


ECO ANNUAL REPORT PAGE 129-130

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

Sound-Sorb

A number of gun clubs across southern Ontario are beginning to build high berms
on their properties to comply with new federal regulations to reduce noise and
dangers from bullets. A hauling company is encouraging gun clubs to build berms
using a mixture of approximately 30 per cent sand and 70 per cent paper mill sludge
from a newsprint recycling plant. The hauling company supplies this material free
of charge, and at trucking costs that are a small fraction of the normal charge.

The mixture of paper mill sludge and sand, called Sound-Sorb, is considered a
product rather than a waste by MOEE. Therefore, the ministry does not regulate this
material nor control how it is placed on land. Instead, if this material were deemed
to be a waste, it would be subject to controls to protect the environment.

Local residents have raised the concern that the impact of these paper mill sludge
berms on surface water and groundwater has not been examined. They note that
high levels of E. coli have been found in some samples of the paper mill sludge.
In December 2001 the ECO received an application for review concerning Sound-Sorb.

This application under the EBR requested a review of MOEE's policy exempting
Sound-Sorb from the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and Section 3 of Ontario
Regulation 347. The applicants noted that Sound-Sorb is being applied directly to land
without any leachate control. They also stated that the paper mill sludge is not being
stabilized or changed in any way by adding sand, and that it continues to undergo
decomposition in the high berms. In addition, they pointed out that in 1997, an MOEE
district office determined that this material was a waste and ordered it removed
from a race track in Peterborough, where it had been placed as a noise barrier. They
also noted that tests of liquid at the base of a Sound-Sorb berm, carried out for the
Durham Region Health Department in 2001, found high levels of both fecal coliform
bacteria and E. coli. The source of these bacteria remains uncertain.

MOEE has agreed to undertake a review of the issues raised by the applicants, and
has informed the applicants that the review will be completed by November 2002.

The ECO will report on the outcome of MOEE's review in the next annual report.

(For ministry comments, see page 180.)


ECO ANNUAL REPORT PAGE 180
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sound-Sorb

MOEE: A report detailing the results of monitoring conducted at the Oshawa Gun Club is posted on the
ministry's Web Site. The ministry is currently undertaking a review on the use of Sound-Sorb material.
The review will be completed by November with a final report to be issued in December 2002.


ECO ANNUAL REPORT SUPPLEMENT PAGE 247

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

Preview of Application: R2001010: (Sound-Sorb)

A number of gun clubs across southern Ontario are beginning to build high berms on their
properties to comply with new federal regulations to reduce noise and dangers from bullets. A
hauling company is encouraging gun clubs to build berms using a mixture of approximately 30
per cent sand and 70 per cent paper mill sludge from a newsprint recycling plant. The hauling
company supplies this material free of charge, and at trucking costs which are a small fraction of
the normal charge. The mixture of paper mill sludge and sand is called Sound-Sorb and is
considered a product rather than a waste by MOEE. Therefore, the ministry does not regulate
this material, or control how it is placed on land. If this material was deemed to be a waste, it
would be subject to controls to protect the environment.

Local residents have raised the concern that the impact of these paper mill sludge berms on
surface water and groundwater has not been examined. They note that high levels of E. coli have
been found in some samples of the paper mill sludge.

In December 2001 the ECO received an application for review concerning Sound-Sorb. This
application under the EBR requested a review of MOEE's policy exempting Sound-Sorb from the
Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and Section 3 of Ontario Regulation 347. The applicants
noted that Sound-Sorb is being applied directly to land without any leachate control. They also
stated that the paper mill sludge is not being stabilized or changed in any way by adding sand,
and that it continues to undergo decomposition in the high berms. In addition, they pointed out
that in 1997, an MOEE District office determined that Sound-Sorb was a waste and ordered it
removed from a race track in Peterborough, where it had been placed as a noise barrier. They
also noted that tests of liquid at the base of a Sound-Sorb berm were carried out for the Durham
Region Health Department in 2001. These tests found high levels of both fecal coliform bacteria
and E. coli. The source of these bacteria remains uncertain.

MOEE has agreed to undertake a review of the issues raised by the applicants, and has informed
the applicants that the review will be completed by November 2002. MOEE has informed the
ECO that the final report will be issued in December 2002. The ECO will report on the outcome
of MOEE's review in the next annual report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Jode Roberts
Communications Coordinator
Sierra Legal Defence Fund
(416) 368-7533 ext. 25
www.sierralegal.org

Sierra Legal Defence Fund is Canada's foremost national non-profit organization dedicated to enforcing and strengthening the laws that safeguard our environment, wildlife and public health.

Get Biosolids assurances in writing

Get Biosolids assurances in writing, OFA members told

By Nelson Zandbergen - AgriNews Staff Writer

CHESTERVILLE — If lawyer Donald Good had his way, the average farmer
wouldn’t allow companies to cover his land with industrial or municipal biosolids
without written assurances that they will cover him in court.

Good, whose Ottawa practice specializes in agricultural,
food and environmental law, presented his controversial
opinions to a skeptical group of farmers and industry

representatives attending a March 14 biosolids
information session organized by the Dundas Federation
of Agriculture.

If biosolids are indeed safe, he told the audience, then
the companies producing and applying the material
should have "no problem" signing indemnity agreements
with farmers. "If you are ever sued, the generator or
the applicator would cover your cost."

Speading currently happens without that extra bit of
legalese, as many farmers are happy to receive a
source of free fertilizer, and generators to get rid of it.

No farmer in Ontario has ever been sued for allowing
biosolids past the farm gate, and Good conceded the
risk of that happening was "relatively remote." But it’s
not a risk he is willing to overlook. Class action lawsuits
by groups of citizens against farms named on certificates of approval for biosolids
spreading are not out of the question in the future, he
suggested. "All we need is a Walkerton-type problem and they
(the public) will know what farms are the problem."

"Make sure you have a good quality indemnity agreement so it doesn’t come out of your
pocket. If there’s no problem, the companies should
have no problem giving you one. If they do have a
problem, then you have to ask yourself, why?"

He further cautioned, "How many people give away
valuable products for free?"

Good also raised the possibility that farm owners using
biosolids today might face extra red tape when they try
to sell their properties tomorrow. He already advises
prospective buyers to insist that all past certificates of
approval be disclosed by the vendor. In addition, he
forsees the day when buyers, as a matter of routine,
will insist that those owners pay for an Environmental
Study Report before farm sales are finalized.

"You could open yourself to problems for selling your
farm or even mortgaging your farm," he said of the
decision to apply biosolids.

Good started off his segment by noting an article he
had written for Country Guide that had first publicized
his opinion regarding farmer’s potential liabilities in the
disposal of municipal sewage on their land, which had
provoked a strong reaction. He estimated that 80 to 90
percent of the hundreds of calls he subsequently
received had praised the article. "They were mostly
neighbours to farms."

Saying he had no objection to the science behind
biosolids application, the soli-citor pointed out that,
rightly or wrongly, public opinion will play an ongoing
role in the legal risks assumed by farmers using the
material. "It’s a perception problem, but perception
sometimes becomes reality."

To illustrate a burgeoning public distaste, he noted an
incident near the City of Brantford, in which a group of
citizens lay down in front of a truck carrying biosolids
into a field that had been certified for spreading. Their
actions prompted Ministry of Environment officials to
scrutinize the paperwork. Irregularities were found and
the license was pulled. "If those people had not showed
up, the field would have been applied and nobody
would’ve given a damn."

In another case, a man dug and registered a number of
wells along his property line to increase the setback
distance from the sludge-spreading farmer next door.

The point is, some people are getting militant, and one
day, they may force farmers to defend themselves in
civil court. "Many farms are not in the position to chuck
out $20,000 or $30,000 in defense costs," he stated,
adding that farm insurance policies usually don’t cover
environmental issues. However, the companies that
produce biosolids may be in a better position to secure
such coverage, he said, allowing them to place farmers
under that umbrella by signing an indemnity agreement.

The solicitor made a comparison with a situation
currently involving an Ontario farmer who had allowed a
company to drill a 900-foot gas well on his land in 1989,
resulting in the accidental contamination of the local
aquifer with saltwater from down below. A large portion
of a neighbour’s herd died from salt poisoning. The
neighbour sued. The drilling company isn’t paying the
first farmer’s legal fees. Trial date has finally been set
for this October, after years of stress and expense for
the farmer. "You don’t want to be caught in the middle,"
he advised.

Questions arose about the actual level of legal risk. In a
pointed example, one man asked Good if tobacco
farmers had ever been sued for producing their product.
Good confirmed that not a single tobacco grower in
Ontario had ever been sued for playing a role in an
industry acknowledged as responsible for millions of
cancer deaths. However, he wasn’t about to change his
position that the legal risks associated with biosolids are
real.

Waste generators who attended the meeting gave
Good’s ideas a chilly reception.

Erik Apedaile, who runs Parmalat Canada’s biosolids
program at the Winchester milk-processing plant,
acknow-ledged that farmers "do accept some risk.

"Managing agriculture is managing risk. It seems to me if
you’re going to be sued, a neighbour is going to have to
prove they had some kind of damage," he said. "I have
a hard time understanding how a neighbour might prove
any kind of damage. The burden of proof is on the
person suing you."

Apedaile said generators can’t offer indemnification
agreements "when we don’t understand all the risks
associated with it." He added such agreements may not
be of much use "20 or 30 years down the road, when a
company may no longer exist."

George Velema, representing the Domtar pulp and paper
plant in Cornwall, said the generators rely on the
government and the Ministry of the Environment to
oversee biosolids application, instead of the legal
system. "From a generator’s point of view, we’d like to
stay away from this legal hocus pocus," he said, adding
it was a matter of reusing the resources produced by
society. "We need to get away from the legal fearmongering."

"You want the buck to stop with the farmer," Good
replied.

Velema said it was a matter of preven-ting "nebulous"
claims against the company, comparing it to the
controversy invol-ving genetically modified corn. "It’s
not a risk the generator can forsee or come good for."
He later asked Good to estimate the cost of future
indemnity – "What do I tell the corporate lawyer, to sell
him on it?" – but received no answer.

"If you’re going to get something for nothing, you’ve got
to assume some risk," interjected South Dundas Mayor
Johnny Whitteker.

In response to another question, Good said that the
Retail Sales Act makes it unnecessary for farmers to
seek indemnity agreements with fertilizer and pesticide
companies applying those products to the land.
However, he said, the Act wouldn’t cover biosolids
application even if farmers paid for the sludge.

Another man then argued that, far from paying for
biosolids, farmers should receive tipping fees to take
the companies’ waste, just like a landfill.
However, Michael Payne, a biosolids specialist with
OMAFRA, said the idea has been tried but is no longer
considered legal. Being paid amounts to waste disposal.
Receiving it for free, though, constitutes fertilization
of the soil.

One area of biosolids application is actually considered
disposal.

Septage from septic tanks, Payne said, is not subject
to the same spreading regulations as sewage taken
from municipal treatment plants. Compared to municipal
sludge, application of septage on approved sites is
subject to very few restraints.

It is expected this loophole will be closed when the
province passes Bill 81, the Nutrient Management Act.