Dear Mr. Webster: Subject:An…

Dear Mr. Webster: Subject:An Improved Regulatory Framework for the Management of Non-Agricultural Source Materials (NASM),EBR Posting #010-1436) I am writing in response to the Environmental Bill of Rights posting (# 010-1436) regarding the regulation of Non-Agricultural Source Materials in association with the Environmental Protection and Nutrient Management Acts. Your consideration of the following comments/questions/concerns in your review of the proposed framework is appreciated. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely Gayle SooChan Director, Groundwater Resources GS/gsc Cc: J.R. Powell, Chief Administrative Officer, CLOCA Heather Brooks, Director Natural Heritage and Watershed Planning, CLOCA Review of An Improved Regulatory Framework for Non-Agricultural Source Materials Posting on EBR  Sept 2007 This proposed framework applies to the application of non-agricultural source materials (NASM) on agricultural lands. Untreated septage is not considered NASM, and application of NASM on other lands such as golf courses, mines, etc is not part of this proposed regulation. This framework is intended to form the basis of revisions to existing regulations under the Nutrient Management Act to eliminate existing duplication in approval requirements. For instance, under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), the operator, hauler and the land owner must obtain Certificates of Approval (CofAs). The Nutrient Management Act (NMA) requires a nutrient management strategy (operator) and a nutrient management plan (land), a certificate for transportation and land application, and licences for business and person applying the material. The framework is also a provincial proposal to develop and revise existing standards for the NASM under the NMA to focus on the quality of the material. It is also proposed that the regulations will be expanded, regulating application of NASM on all agricultural lands, not just livestock farms. It is proposed that these duplications will be dealt with through exemptions provided in the EPA. Comments General The Province is to be applauded for the expansion on the existing regulations to consider NASM’s. The environmental impact of the application of these materials (and products that contain them) is still relatively unknown. Protection of our environmental resources should be carefully reviewed against agricultural and cost benefits associated with nutrient management. As well, research and documentation of the efficacy of these products is needed to ensure that the associated potential risks are managed. Clearly an impressive amount of work has gone into the development of this document with special attention paid to the physical, chemical and biological constituents, classification of the materials and where and when they can be applied. This is a positive step forward. Purpose 1.0  Regulatory Revision - Timing The document speaks to an improved regulatory framework governing the application of Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) under the Nutrient Management Act. It is assumed that final approval of this framework will result in revisions to the NMA and/or associated regulations (267/03 & 230/07). What is the timing for any such revisions? Definitions: Suggest adding a definition for Agricultural Lands for clarification. The current document is not clear regarding how these lands are defined (Ontario Land Inventory, Official Plans/Zoning) or under what legislative instrument. It is suggested that the definition of agricultural operation under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act 1998 be used. This would ensure that even materials used for soil conditioning are considered. Generator Requirements The framework indicates that only the LAST handling generator of the NASM is subject to the requirements out lined in the framework. It is suggested that in order to maintain a proper chain of custody record that all handling generators be required to keep records. This will ensure that any mixing, modification and or storage of the original source material that occurs prior to application, is clearly documented. This should assist in the determination of the quality of the material. NMS - Certified Individuals Suggest specifying credential/experience requirements for clarity Consideration of Vulnerable Areas Though the framework speaks to Vulnerable Areas as defined under the Source Water Protection initiative, it is unclear as to what actions/requirements are associated with consideration of a vulnerable area as well as if applicators will be subject to various requirements based on sensitivity scores within the high? vulnerable areas (1-10). Note technical SWP modules speak to sensitivity scoring within vulnerable areas. It is suggested that the framework be brought in line with other thinking, and policy development around Highly Vulnerable Areas. Primacy The framework should note the primacy of policies, including separation distances outlined in Source Water Plans approved under the Clean Water Act to ensure consistency in policy application. Pulp and Paper Biosolids Clearly pulp and paper biosolids are defined as NASM’s. It appears that this framework is intended also to apply to products such as Nitrosorb and Soundsorb that CONTAIN large quantities of NASMs. Note: NitroSorb is usually applied to cropland as a nutrient supplement, while SoundSorb may be applied in certain conditions as a soil conditioner. These products are, however, currently not classified as waste products under the EPA Part V nor the NMA. The framework is somewhat confusing as to whether these non-waste products are indeed considered NASMs or separate new patented products. The framework and associated requirements appears to be linked to wastes as established under the EPA or the NMA. Are the above mentioned products considered to be commercial fertilizers (which would exempt them according to the framework)? It is not clear whether this framework applies to these products. Clarification is required. Note that the Provincial Expert Panel on Pulp and Paper Biosolids spoke to closer monitoring and regulation of these products. The Definition of Risk Risk definition/ classification should be consistent with other instruments like the CWA. Risk to groundwater contamination for example does not currently have a very low category under SWP technical modules. This framework indicates no restriction in application for these areas. Where/how are these areas defined? Criteria for Odour Annoyance (COA) Odour is now being considered to determine setback to individual residences, residential areas and institutional areas. Odour classification is based on storage time and type of NASM. The minimum distance separation is 25 m for the lowest odour beside an individual residence. Equitable compliance/enforcement may be difficult for this component as enforcement will likely be triggered by complaints. Location of the property and proximity to residential development will result in biased enforcement. Nevertheless, this is an improvement to existing regulations. Odour and Storage The province perhaps should consider determining whether farms that are subject to the most stringent COA classifications and associated time/date restrictions for application, have the required storage capacity (as documented in the EFP/NMPs/NMS ). OSCIA storage expansion subsidies should be extended to assist farmers. Application Charts Good work. This allows for various methods in calculation of application rates. This will assist applicators/farmers with fewer resources. Site- Specific Considerations The framework should allow for site-specific exemptions where the applicator can demonstrate no adverse affects to the environment. Enforcement Finally, enforcement of provincial regulations is a necessary evil particularly during the initial evolutionary stages to ensure compliance. This has been demonstrated and documented for many provincial instruments and is clearly needed in the management of NASMs. Coupling the enforcement with education and stewardship would allow for increased compliance and ultimately fewer resources required to be spent on enforcement.

[Original Comment ID: 104736]