HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS 46-05PICKERING
REPORT TO
COUNCIL
Report Number: CS 46-05
Date: May 31,2005
From:
Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM
City Clerk
Subject: Report of the Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb
Recommendation:
That Corporate Services Report CS 46-05 regarding the Report of the Experts
Panel on Sound-Sorb be received.
That the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorses the
Report of the Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb dated January 31, 2005 and
prepared for the Ministry of the Environment.
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary actions to give effect thereto.
Executive Summary:
The purpose of this Report is to endorse the recommendations set out in the Report the
Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb as recommended by the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority. The Chief Administrative Officer has forwarded a letter dated
May 26, 2005 to the Ministry of the Environment advising that although the deadline for
receiving comments on this Report expired on May 26, 2005, Pickering Council would
be dealing with this matter at its meeting of June 6, 2005 and sending its comments
shortly thereafter.
Financial Implications: Not applicable
Background:
Please find attached to this Report the following documentation:
Report CS 46-05
Report of Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb
May 31,2005
Page 2
correspondence from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
requesting municipalities within its jurisdiction to endorse the Report of the
Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb that was commissioned by the Ministry of the
Environment.
· correspondence from the Chief Administrative Officer advising the Ministry of the
Environment that Pickering Council will be commenting on this matter.
· the Report of the Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb.
The Ministry of the Environment established an independent experts panel to determine
if Sound-Sorb poses any adverse effects on human health or the environment when
used as intended.
Sound-Sorb is a product derived from mixing paper fibre biosolids (PFB) and soil and is
used to construct sound and bullet attenuation berms at numerous gun clubs
throughout the Province.
The recommendations of the Experts Panel is set out on Page 29 of their Report and
are:
There is no need to ban the use of PFB mixed with mineral soil (Sound-Sorb) for
bulk use in berms
There is no need to remove the Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club OSGC berm
provided long-term monitoring of the groundwater is continued.
Existing berms at other gun clubs should have a hydrogeological assessment. A
monitoring regime in accord with the algorithm found in Chapter 4 should be
established. Removal of a berm would only be appropriate as a mitigation option
is contaminants in excess of the Ontario Drinking-Water Quality Standards were
found in groundwater leaving the site or significant risks to human or
environmental health were found on an SSRA or other risk assessment.
4. PFB should be composted before it is used in a berm.
Before a berm constructed on PFB and mineral soil is placed at any new
location, a hydrogeological assessment should be done, and a SSRA done if the
assessment indicates that one is necessary according to algorithm found in
Chapter 4. The use of the proposed site for a new berm should be subject to
MOE control by a Certificate of Approval or legal instrument that provides equal
or better protection for human health and the environment.
6. Paper fibre biosolids should be controlled by Certificates of Approval or legal
instruments that provide equal or better protection for human health and the
environment at all stages from its generation, through transport, composting and
final use in the construction of berms. The use of paper fibre biosolid material
mixed with mineral soil should also be subject to MOE control with respect to its
CORP0227-07/01
Report CS 46-05
Report of Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb
May 31, 2005
Page 3
preparation and use in the environment by a Certificate of Approval or legal
instrument that provides equal or better protection for human health and the
environment.
Attachments'
Letter dated April 25, 2005 from CLOCA
Letter dated May 26, 2005 from the CAO to Ministry of the Environment
Report of the Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
Thorr~s ~. Q-uinn, CJief Ad ~'~t~tiv. e,.Offic~r
CORP0227-07/01
JATrACHMENT#,,/
Central
Lake ~Ontario
,Conservation
April 25, 2005i~
' ~ ...... / ,&!il,
TV OF pIOK~RIN~
C~ EVELOPMENT
p~NNt"~ & O ._ / /
DISTR~UTED TO: DEPARTMEN~
M. de Rond, Clerk, Town of Ajax
G.S. Graham, Clerk-Administrator, Township of Brock
P.L. Ba~ie, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington
S. Kranc, Clerk, City of Oshawa
B. Taylor, Clark, City of Pickering
K. Coates, Clerk, Township of Scugog
W.E. Taylor, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge
D.G. McKay, Clerk, Town of Whitby
Dear MuniciPal Clerk:
100 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario
LI H 3T3
Tel: (905) 579-0411
Fax: (905) 579-0994
Web: www. cloca.com
Email: maii@cloca.com ,~, ~
CLOCA IMS File ASLH11
Subject:
Report of the Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb
EBR Registry Number: XA05E0005
Enclosed is correspondence item (1) from the April 19, 2005 CLOCA Board of Directors meeting
regarding the above noted matter.
The CLOCA Board of Directors adopted the following resolution in regard to this correspondence
item with particular emphasis on the CLOCA letter of March 21, 2005 to the Ministry of the
Environment (SooChan - Reed).
Moved by M. Brenner
Seconded by J. Neal
"THAT a letter be sent from CLOCA to local municipalities urging that municipal councils endorse
all of the recommendations offered by the expert panel and specifically underlines its
recommendations regarding the need for control measures in the production and application of PFB
related products. "
I would appreciate your bring this matter to the attention of council and consideration of st~pport.
Y°urs truly'I ~'~
,/~.R.~Powell
Chief Administrative Officer
JRP/klt
Enc.
s:hmss~Clerks Apr25-05 soundsorb
What we do on the land is mirrored in the water
P CKERING
]ATTACHMENT#, TO
Picketing Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
Canada
L1V 6K7
Direct Access (905) 420-4660
cityofpickering, com
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Depar[ment (905) 420-4648
Facsimile (905) 4~0-6064
cao ~dty. pickering.on.ca
May 26,2005
By Facsimile and Reqular Mail
Ellen R. Reed
Assistant Director's Office, Central Region
Ministry of the Environment
5775 Yonge Street, 8th floor
Toronto, ON M2M 4J1
Subject:
Management of Paper Fibre Biosolid Materials
- Report of Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb
- EBR Registry Number XAO5E0005
- File: D-1000-001
On March 21, 2005, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) wrote the
Ministry of the Environment (MOE) advising that CLOCA endorses all of the recommendations
offered by the expert's panel respecting the production and application of paper fibre biosolids,
and urged the MOE to adopt the Panel's recommendations. On April 25, 2005, CLOCA sent a
letter to local municipalities urging municipal councils to "endorse all of the recommendations
offered by the expert panel and specifically underline its recommendations regarding the need
for control measures in the production and application of PFB related products".
While I intend to bring this endorsement request to Pickering Council for consideration at its
scheduled meeting of June 6, 2005, this will not meet the comment deadline of May 26, 2005,
reflected in the EBR Registry. Please be advised that the administration of the City of Pickering
supports CLOCA's position on this matter. I will forward Pickering Council's official position on
this matter to your attention following Council's consideration of the endorsement request on
June 6, 2005.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
TQ:Ir
Copy:
Yours truly
ThOm'as J. Quinn R,.¢.M.R., CM
Chief Administrative Officer
Mayor Ryan
Members of Council
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Director, Planning & Development
Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
City Clerk
JATTACHMENT# ~, TO REPORT
ATTACHMENT# 9- TO REPORT
George Rocoski - Acting Director
Central Region
Ministry of the Environment
8t" Floor - 5775 Yonge St.
North York, ON
M2M 4J1
Letter of Transmittal
Dear Sir:
Attached please find the Final Report of the Experts Panel on Sound-Sorb.
This is the Report drafted by the Tier I members of the Panel.
Qualified individuals appointed by the Ministry to bring their knowledge and expertise to bear on the issues
surrounding the assessment of potential adverse effects of Sound-Sorb on human health or the environment.
Tier I members included the following:
- Dr. Brian Gibson - Physician ~ LAMP Occupational Health Program
- Dr. Lesbia Smith - Physician - Toxicology - Assistant Professor of Public Health Sciences
- Dr. Les Evans -groundwater chemistry and soils -University of Guelph
- Bill Blackport, M.Sc., P. Geo. - Consulting Hydrogeologist
- Dr. Merv Fingas - Spill Research and Development-- Environment Canada
- Mark Chappel - Risk Assessment Specialist - AMEC Earth & Environmental
TJmr I - ~ ~talmlmldmm
The members of Tier 2 monitored the Panel workshops to satisfy themselves that the Panel is acting
appropriately and meeting the Terms of Reference. Although Tier 2 members were not direct participants in
the technical discussions of the Panel, they were empowered to ask questions for clarification, offer
suggestions where appropriate and bring any relevant research and studies to the attention of the Panel. Tier 2
members included the following:
· ATLANTIC PACKAGING
- Todd Kostal - Nancy Downs(Alternate)
· COURTICE AUTO WRECKERS
-Harvey Ambrose
· OSHAWA SKEET AND GUN CLUB
- Jim Anderson - Bob Cake (Alternate)
· PROTECT THE RIDGES
- Deb Vice -David Wade - Environmental Risk Manager & Geoscientist
· BROCK LAND STEWARDS
- Don Whitcombe
· SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA
- Maureen Reilly
· CITY OF OSHAWA
- Warren Munro
· MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
-Faye Langmaid
· DURHAM REGION - HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
- John Neal - Chair and Regional Councillor from Oshawa (Alternate: Ken Gorman)
- Margo McNab
· ASSOCIATION OF (}UN CLUBS
- Canadian Shooting Sports Association (John Simpson)
RespectfullyS ubmitted
R.J. Ogilvie
Independent Facilitator
Table of Contents
1.
ATTACHMENT # _ TO REPORT
Introduction and Background ......................................................................... 3
1.1 Expert Panel .................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Tier 1 - Tier 2 ............................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Workshops ..................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Final Terms of Reference ............................................................................................ 6
2.0 Review of the Reports and Literature Relevant to Sound-Sorb ................... 7
2.1 Screening for Contaminants of Potential Concern ................................................... 7
2.2 Management Measures to Reduce Risk ..................................................................... 9
2.3 Chemicals Requiring Further Evaluation ................................................................ 12
3.0 Analysis and Conclusions about the Risks .................................................... 15
3.1 ToxiciW and Existing Guidelines ............................................................................. 15
3.2 MOE Research Component ....................................................................................... 18
4,0 Algorithm for the Use of PFBs in Berms at Gun Clubs .............................. 20
4.1 General Principles of the Algorithm for Sound-Sorb Berm Management .......... 20
4.2 Hydrogeological Assessment .................................................................................... 20
4.3 Certificate of Approval .............................................................................................. 21
4.4 Materials for use in Berm Construction ................................................................... 21
4.5 Construction and Maintenance ................................................................................. 22
4.6 Monitoring Program ................................................................................................... 22
4.7 Remediation ................................................................................................................ 23
4.8 Management of Existing Berms ............................................................................... 23
4.9 Caveats on Application of the Algorithm ................................................................ 24
5.0 Answers to the Three Questions .................................................................... 25
5.1 Question 1: Does Sound-Sorb, as used as a berm construction material, present a
risk to human health or the environment and what is the nature of that risk? ................ 25
5.2 Question 2: If yes, to what degree and what management measures, if any, can
be instituted to eliminate or minimize the risks to acceptable levels? ............................. 25
5.3 Question 3: Given the intent to apply the findings across the Province, under
what conditions should Sound-Sorb not be used or its use restricted? ............................ 27
6.0 Recommendations ........................................................................................... 29
7.0 Bibliographic References ................................................................................ 30
List of Figures
Figure 1: Algorithm Flow Chart
List of Tables
Table 2.3.1
Table 2.3.2
Chemicals for Further Investigation Detected in Sound-Sorb Berm
Chemicals for Further Investigation Detected in Groundwater
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Tier 1 Members
Tier 2- Affected Stakeholders
Synopsis of the Conclusions of the 13 Key Reports
Summary of Findings from the Draft SSRA CANTOX (May 2004)
References from the Binder of Reports
Literature Searches
List of Submissions
A ACHMENT# . -- '
1. Introduction and Background
The Ministry of the Environment established an "independent experts panel" to review the
available reports, studies and data on a material called Sound-Sorb to determine if it poses an),
adverse effects on human health or the environment when used as intended. Sound-Sorb is:
a product derived from mixing Atlantic Packaging paper fibre biosolids (PFB) and soil at
approximately a 3:1 ratio" it is "...used to construct sound and bullet attenuation berms at
numerous (8) gun clubs throughout the Province. Sites where Sound-Sorb has been used to
construct berms include Oshawa, Madoc, Ofillia, Napanee, West Lincoln (2 locations),
Aylmer and Peterborough .... Paper Fibre Bio-Solids (PFBs) which are used to make Sound -
Sorb are mumcipal waste as that term is broadly defined in Reg. 347. Municipal waste is any
waste other than hazardous waste, liquid industrial waste or gaseous waste. PFBs are not
hazardous, liquid industrial or gaseous waste and, therefore, are municipal waste. PFBs also
fall within the O. Reg. 347 definition of processed organic waste, which is a type of municipal
waste. Residents living near these gun clubs and various citizens' groups have raised
concern about its use and the potential for the large berms to harm the environment and
contaminate groundwater'(EBR, March 2003).
Since December 2001 the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has pursued a number of studies
relating to PFBs and Sound-Sorb. To-date, the ministry's technical review suggests that "there
are no adverse environmental impacts resulting from the use of Sound-Sorb as a berm material"
(EBR March, 2003). However, some of the affected stakeholders believed that these studies
have not answered all of their concerns. As a final step in resolving the concems regarding
Sound-Sorb, the Ministry made the following commitment in its Report on the EBR Application
for Review, March, 2003:
Based on the technical review that the Ministry has undertaken to date and the work that is
either ongoing or still to be undertaken, the Ministry proposes to establish an independent
panel of scientific expertise to review and assess existing and new data.
1.1 Expert Panel
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) established an Expert Panel in February 2004
to provide an "independent-objective-scientific" assessment of the information regarding any
adverse effects of Sound-Sorb on human health or the environment. The MOE put three
questions to the Expert Panel:
· Does Sound-Sorb have an adverse effect on human health or the environment?
If yes, to what degree and what mitigation measures, if any, can be instituted to eliminate
or minimize the risk to acceptable levels?
Given the intent to apply the findings across the province, are them any site conditions
which may be more sensitive to the use of Sound-Sorb?
The Panel is a technical advisory mechanism to the MOE. It is not a public heating or complaint
review committee. The findings of the Expert Panel will be used by the MOE as an integral part
of its decision-making process regarding Sound-Sorb. There was no expectation that the
independent Expert Panel will conduct or commission any independent or additional research
studies of Sound-Sorb.
1.2 Tier1 -Tier2
The Panel consisted of two tiers of participants. Tier 1 was made up of scientists and experts
who were asked to render impartial answers to the questions regarding Sound-Sorb. Tier 2 was
made up of stakeholders - a cross-section of individuals and organizations who had an interest in
the process and the potential outcomes - i.e., the local citizens, Protect the Ridges, Durham
Regional Health Unit, Atlantic Packaging, Harvey Ambrose (the developer of Sound-Sorb),
Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club, local municipalities, and others. The list of individuals who
participated as Tier 1 members can be found in Appendix A. The individuals and organizations
who participated as Tier 2 members are listed in Appendix B.
The Tier 1 members had the following roles and responsibilities:
· To review the reports, studies and data on Sound-Sorb in a peer review format and to render
a collective answer to the three questions;
· To conduct their own reviews of the literature and bring any relevant research to the
attention of their colleagues on the Panel;
· To seek a consensus among themselves and where a consensus was not possible, to represent
all differences of opinion in their final report:
The Tier 2 members had the following roles and responsibilities:
· To monitor the Expert Panel workshops to satisfy themselves that the Panel is acting
appropriately and meeting the Terms of Reference;
· To participate as observers, to ask for clarification, to offer suggestions and to bring relevant
research studies and experience to the attention of the Panel.
Robb Ogilvie, partner with Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company was retained to serve as the
independent facilitator responsible for the integrity of the process, while the experts were
responsible for the integrity of their technical analysis and conclusions. Melissa Hirst performed
the Secretariat functions for the process and was the recorder for the workshops.
1.3 Workshops
The independent Expert Panel was established in February, 2004 with a mandate to hold four
public workshops no later than December, 2004. A Public Information Session was held by the
MOE on February 12, 2004. This start-up session with the community was held at the Centennial
Centre in Whitby to explain the approach, answer questions and seek their advice and comments.
4
The MOE plans to hold another public information session after the release of the final report.
The process was designed to be transparent by virtue of stakeholder presence and participation in
four workshops. Stakeholders asked questions and raised points for Tier 1 members'
consideration. At the same time, the process was informed by the experts in their scientific
approach to researching and analyzing the issues and by their hierarchical approach to the
development of recommendations. In short, the process and the content were to be dealt with in a
manner consistent with the principles of transparency, accountability and objectivity.
The First Workshop was held at the Durham Region Council Chambers in Whitby, Ontario of
March 22, 2004. It had three goals:
1. To allow the experts to amend and reach agreement among themselves regarding
the draft Terms of Reference.
2. To provide an opportunity for the experts to familiarize themselves with the
"binder" of reports and other materials that has been prepared for the Panel's use
and deliberations. Ministry staff were on hand to answer any questions regarding
these reports.
3. To reach agreement on how the experts want to proceed with their deliberations -
i.e., the next steps, what support work would be needed, what would happen
between then and the 2nd, 3rd and Final workshops.
As a result of the First Workshop additional reports, studies and guidelines were identified for
consideration by the Tier 1 members. The initial list of potential hazards (E. coli, acrylamide
monomer, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH)) was expanded to include an additional 20
substances or concems.
The Expert Panel discussed and revised the 3 questions. Question 1 was rephrased to include the
quantification of the risk and a description of what the risk is. The word "mitigation" was used
in the original Question 2. The Panel members believed monitoring should also be included.
Since monitoring is a possible management measure, this term was used to replace the word
"mitigation." The Panel felt that it was possible to draw conclusions at a "high level of
generalization" that could be applied across the Province. The MOE accepted the changes to the
Terms of Reference that were proposed.
The Second Workshop was held at the Centennial Centre in Whitby, Ontario on May 26, 2004.
At that workshop:
The Tier 1 experts reviewed the MOE Orders and supporting documentation with respect to
a berm constructed in Flamborough in a wetland.
The Tier 1 experts reviewed several submissions from Tier 2 members.
· The MOE tabled the results of sampling done at the monitoring wells in October 2003
(Sweep 3).
· The Tier 1 experts asked the MOE about the status of the SSRA being prepared by Cantox
Environmental. The draft SSRA was released during the summer on a confidential basis to
Tier 1 members to assist their analysis. It was also released to Tier 2 members at the Third
5
Workshop.
The Tier 1 members finalized the detailed methodology they planned to use during their
summer sessions
The Third Workshop was held at the Durham Region Council Chambers in Whitby, Ontario on
October 7, 2004. It had two goals:
· To present the preliminary findings and conclusions of the Tier 1 experts based on their
discussions over the summer.
· To answer any questions for clarification and get feedback from the Tier 2 members.
Four preliminary conclusions and the reasons for them were presented: 1. There was no need to remove the berm at the Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club (OSGC).
2. Other existing berms do not require removal prior to assessment.
3. There was no need to ban Sound-Sorb.
4. PFB should be controlled by the MOE throughout its life cycle, with or without
admixture with soil.
The Fourth Workshop was held at the Centennial Centre, Whitby, Ontario on December 17,
2004. The purpose of this workshop was:
· To present the final conclusions and recommendations of the Tier 1 experts.
· To provide an opportunity for Tier 2 stakeholders to review and comment on the
conclusions and recommendations.
The recommendations at the end of this report are substantially the same as those presented by
the Panel on December 17, 2004. One recommendation was split into two. Two of the
recommendations were very similar and have been combined into one.
1.4 Final Terms of Reference
Question 1- Does Sound-Sorb, as used as a berm construction material, present a risk to
human health or the environment and what is the nature of that risk?
Question 2 - If yes, to what degree and what management measures, if any, can be
instituted to eliminate or minimize the risks to acceptable levels?
Question 3 - Given the intent to apply the findings across the Province, under what
conditions should Sound-Sorb not be used or its use restricted? '
2.0 Review of the Reports and Literature Relevant to Sound-Sorb
2.1 Screening for Contaminants of Potential Concern
Using a series of half-day sessions and teleconferences from early July until late September, the
Expert Panel completed their individual and collective reviews of the literature and reviewed
twenty three (23) concems developed in the First Workshop. These concems were related to the
following conditions or compounds found in, or related to Sound-Sorb, including:
E. coli
Acrylamide monomer
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)
Temperature
Polycyclic aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
· Surfactants - nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates
· Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (toluene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), phenol etc.)
· Bioaerosols
· Metals (copper, lead, silver)
· Nutrients
· Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
· Pesticides
· Arsenic
· Formaldehyde
· PCBs
· Compounds likely to be found in inks, dyes, laser jet ink
· Compounds from drinking boxes
· Waxes and wax solvents
· Potential for the berms to be anaerobic
· Potential for leaching and impacts on groundwater and surface water
· Potential impact on fish habitat and aquatic organisms
· Groundwater monitoring wells -construction and monitoring and testing procedures
· Data reliability.
The reports that had been generated about Sound-Sorb were made available for review by the
Expert Panel. Tier 2 members also received a copy of all reports. The Panel also conducted
literature reviews of peer-reviewed publications. The complete list of reports and literature that
were reviewed are listed in Appendix E and Appendix F. The reports included studies related to
the microbiological analysis of bulk paper fibre biosolids (Atlantic Packaging, 2000; MOE June
2002), sampling events at the Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club (Gartner Lee, 2001; MOE June
2002), a report related to the bioaerosol study conducted at the OSGC (GlobalTox, 2004),
summary reports regarding groundwater monitoring studies conducted at the OSGC by the
MOE, and a draft SSRA for the OSGC (Cantox, 2004). In addition, some 90 peer reviewed
publications were collected following a literature search using keywords related to paper fibre
7
biosolids (PFB), however, only a selected number of papers were considered relevant to this
investigation. Although a systematic review of the peer reviewed literature and summary of that
literature is beyond the scope of this report, a summary of the conclusions of the 13 key reports
examined by the Expert Panel is provided in Table C. 1 in Appendix C of this report. The Panel
focused specific attention to the Cantox Environmental draft SSRA. See Table D. 1 in Appendix
D. The materials provided by Tier 2 members are listed in Appendix G. The Expert Panel also
reviewed the results of the Toxicity Characteristic Leach Procedure (TCLP) analysis on the
Sound-Sorb material in the berm at the OSGC was done as part of the Cantox Environmental
SSRA (October 2004).
2.1.1 Nine Step Methodology
During several sessions in the summer of 2004 the Expert Panel adopted a nine-step
methodology to address its Terms of Reference. This methodology entails a stepwise process to
examine risks associated with existing berms and new berms. It considers the identification of
suspect substances that may be emitted to the environment from the Sound-Sorb mixture,
potential concentrations, toxicity, compliance with existing guidelines for groundwater or
drinking water, and potential for dispersion to environmental receptors. Those characteristics
which depend on Sound-Sorb itself vs. those which depend on site characteristics were also
considered in developing a management scheme. The nine steps were:
Step A: Supplement the list of suspect substances/concerns about the contents of Sound-Sorb
with a literature review.
Step B: Develop screening criteria/methods to decide what substances can be dropped from
further consideration and which ones need further research and evaluation.
Step C: Apply the criteria and determine which substances should have more detailed
investigation
Step D: Based on the data/information available, describe the maximum potential loading that
could be in Sound-Sorb.
Step E: Extract data from the reports/surveys that describe the measurements found.
Step F: Based on the literature, describe the levels that could potentially occur at/in human or
environmental receptors.
Step G: Review as a team and see if there is a consensus that "we see something".
Step H: Compare "G" with the appropriate standards, guidelines, thresholds or effects-based
reference criteria (for soil, surface water, groundwater or air).
Step I: Integrate the results of the draft SSRA into the Panel's analysis.
2.2 Management Measures to Reduce Risk
Sound-Sorb is a trade-marked construction material composed of PFBs and mineral soil. It has
been used to construct berms at gun clubs in Ontario and is exempt from Ontario's waste
management regulation O. Reg. 347.3, Section (2)1. As an exempt material Sound-Sorb has not
been subject to MOE control. It has been described as 70 percent PFB and 30 percent
sand/mineral soil, but some variation in this ratio does occur. The Expert Panel could not
determine to what extent the material was thoroughly mixed. Under the regulatory exemption
the material could legally contain municipal, hazardous or liquid industrial waste. Although
there was concern from some Tier 2 members that such materials had been put into berms the
Expert Panel did not have any verifiable evidence that other materials had been used in berm
construction. The samples taken by the MOE from the OSGC berm and other berms appear to
be the same material as the raw PFB from Atlantic Packing that the MOE analysed.
There has not been sufficient time for slower moving leachate chemicals from the OSGC berm to
reach the monitoring wells. The monitoring well results therefore do not provide evidence for or
against wastes other than PFBs being used in the construction of the berm. The Expert Panel
was not set up to determine what materials might or might not have been used in berm
construction. The data that was available to the panel allowed it to come to conclusions only
with respect to the use of PFBs in berms mixed with clean mineral soil.
The Expert Panel felt that it could not come to a conclusion on all of the possible risks to human
health and the environment based on the data it had. It also felt that a more systematic collection
of data at berms would not provide sufficient additional information to assess future risks. Much
of this risk relates to the decomposition of the PFB over decades and possible contamination of
the soil on which the berms have been built. On the other hand the Expert Panel believed that
the bulk use of PFB in berms could be managed in a way that would reduce any risk to human
health and the environment to a minimum.
2.2.1 Removing the exemption on Sound-Sorb
The Expert Panel is recommending that the bulk use of PFBs be handled under MOE Certificates
of Approval for all steps of its life-cycle or by other legal instruments that can provide equal or
better protection for both human health and the environment. The product formulation
exemption should not be applied to Sound-Sorb. This measure would ensure that the
conclusions based on the data available would be accurate for future berms.
2.2.2 Pre-composting of PFBs.
This measure would:
· kill potential pathogens like E. coli
· reduce the load of TPHs
· reduce temperature in a newly constructed berm so as to permit immediate vegetative
9
growth on the berm;
improve the C:N ratio in the PFBs that would assist vegetative growth;
reduce slumpage of the berm material.
2.2.3 Requiring monitoring wells for the life of existing berm.
The Expert Panel did not have data that would indicate that the Sound-Sorb that was analysed
contained anything other than PFBs and sand/mineral soil material. The Panel recognized that
other materials could be in the existing berms. It did not have a mandate under its Terms of
Reference to attempt to determine what else might be in a berm. Under the management
algorithm that was developed the MOE could require, based on its own investigations,
monitoring for other substances for which evidence exists.
2.2.4 Setting Standards for the Siting, Construction and Maintenance of Berms
These measures would be set out in a Certificate of Approval would control the risk of runoff
from berms entering surface waters and the risk of bioaerosols coming from berms.
2.2.5. Short Listing of Parameters for Further Consideration
The Expert Panel considered 8 of the parameters for further consideration, including: acrylamide
monomer, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
copper, lead and arsenic, MEK and phenol. The other concerns were addressed as follows:
E. coli had been identified in the PFBs and a puddle on the OSGC site. (Gartner Lee 2001, MOE
June 2002, MOE August 2003, MOE April 2004). The source and the pathogenicity of the E.
coli could not be conclusively determined. The Expert Panel believed proper composting would
control possible hazards related to pathogenic organisms in the material.
Temperature- The concem with respect to temperature related to the heat generated by raw
PFBs when it is stored in bulk. This heat had prevented the growth of vegetation on the berms
during the first season after they were constructed. The Expert panel believed that proper
composting over a year would allow sufficient time for the heat to dissipate from the piles of
Sound-Sorb.
Surfactants such as nonylphenol and nonylphenol ethoxylates- These compounds were
measured in raw PFBs and leachate and not detected. (Gartner Lee 2001, MOE June 2002). In
addition, the Expert Panel believed that any concentrations of these compounds would be subject
to biodegradation and that when subjected to aerobic conditions through proper composting, that
these compounds would not be persistent. This is supported by several studies conducted on the
persistence ofnonylphenols in soil (Wild and Jones, 1992: Maguire, 1999).
10
VOCs- The MOE included VOC scans in its analyses related to Sound Sorb. These analyses
showed that these parameters all fell within the soil and groundwater standards provided by the
MOE (MOE April 2004). The decomposition of PFBs is likely to generate higher concentrations
of phenol than are found in the raw PFBs. The Expert Panel felt that the MOE should conduct
sampling of the monitoring wells for phenol on a research basis. See Section 3.2 for more
information on this parameter.
Bioaerosols- Although PFBs support the growth of bacteria and moulds, covering the berms
with properly composted material or other organic material in addition to a vegetative cover
would prevent the PFBs from being a source of hazardous bioaerosols. The Expert Panel agreed
with the conclusions of the Sporometrics Bioaerosol study that was part of the GlobalTox report
that the potential for bioaerosol generation from Sound-Sorb was low (GlobalTox 2004). The
fungal and bacterial organisms generated from Sound-Sorb were typical organisms found in soil.
There were no criteria to which concentrations of specific organisms determined by air
monitoring could be compared and therefore an air monitoring study was not recommended.
Silver- Although this metal may pose a hazard to ecological receptors, it was not found above
guidelines in any of the analyses conducted at the Oshawa Skeet and Gun Club (Cantox 2004).
Nutrients- The PFBs in Sound-Sorb contain a very high carbon to nitrogen ratio. PFBs have a
Iow phoshate content. As such they are not a significant sources of nitrogen and phosphate
nutrients that cause the eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems. When the berm is covered with
compost and the compost is vegetated, the structure does not represent a major source of these
nutrients in comparison to other organic containing soils.
Pesticides- The Expert Panel agreed with the draft SSRA that the most likely source for the
pesticides detected (at the detection limit) was agricultural and/or residential use. There should
be minimal pesticide residues in the municipal waste paper (MOE August 2003; MOE April
2004; Cantox 2004).
Formaldehyde- This compound was not detected in significant concentrations in the analyses
that were conducted by the MOE (MOE January 2004).
PCBs- PCBs were detected at very low concentrations (MOE June 2002; MOE August 2003;
MOE April 2004), and it is expected that there would be very minimal concentrations of PCBs in
municipal waste paper. In addition, removing the exemption on Sound-Sorb eliminates this
concern for future berms.
Compounds likely to be found in inks, dyes, laser jet ink, compounds from drinking boxes
and waxes and wax solvents- These compounds are known or may be found in municipal paper
waste streams. It is thought that some of these constituents may have contributed to levels of
TPH in the raw PFBs in excess of Table 1 and 2 site standards listed under O. Reg. 153/04.
Those compounds likely to be present in more than minute amounts are covered by the organic
scans that the MOE did.
11
Anaerobic Decomposition, Leaching- The Expert Panel believed that there was a significant
risk that the berms would undergo anaerobic decomposition and generate an acid leachate. The
risks to surface waters can be controlled by the selection of an appropriate site, proper
construction techniques, and general and specific maintenance measures recommended by the
Expert Panel.
BOD- The risk associated with groundwater entering surface water can be monitored by
measuring BOD in groundwater.
Monitoring Wells- It was not within the scope of the Terms of Reference of the Expert Panel to
address all the concerns that Tier 2 members had with respect to the monitoring wells. In general
the Panel believes that the data from the OSGC wells, because of the impermeability of the soil
represents baseline conditions rather than significant leachate that has already reached
groundwater.
Data Reliability- The Expert Panel concluded that the data provided a reasonable
characterization of contaminants in the raw PFBs. The Panel felt that the data from monitoring
wells was not representative of leachate that could come from the berms over many decades,
both because there was not sufficient time for many contaminants to have migrated to the
monitoring wells and because the chemistry inside the berm undergoes significant changes over
time.
The Expert Panel therefore retained acrylamide, TPH, PAHs, copper, lead and arsenic, MEK and
phenol for further consideration.
2.3 Chemicals Requiring Further Evaluation
One of the first steps in a human health or ecological risk assessment is to screen for potential
contaminants of concem that require further assessment. Typically this is accomplished by
comparing measured environmental concentration data to generic criteria, standards, or other
suitable guideline values that are published by recognized regulatory jurisdictions, such as MOE
(MOE, 2004) or U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA, 2004). The Ontario Ministry of the Environment provides
Soil Standards (formerly referred to as genetic criteria) for the purposes of accessing chemical
concentrations in soil for clean-up purposes with the consideration of various land uses for
contaminated sites in Ontario. The MOE's Table 2 (O. Reg. 153/04) (formerly Table A) values
have been developed to provide protection against the potential for adverse effects to human
health, ecological health and the natural environment on sites which are not considered
environmentally sensitive. While no specific criteria have been developed for Sound-Sorbper
se, the soil standards (formerly generic criteria) developed by MOE under Part XV. 1 of the
Environmental Protection Act are somewhat applicable for use in screening chemicals of
potential concem from requiting further assessment.
Table 2.3.1 outlines the chemicals that were considered by the Expert Panel as requiring further
investigation.
12
Table 2.3.1 Chemicals for Further Investigation Detected in Sound-Serb Berm.
Parameter CCME O. Reg, 153/04 Range of 2 x Max. Component Requires further
Guidelines (pg/g) or MOE Values Con~ Values (MOE, investigation
1996 (fxg/g) Detected 2004); other
(gtg/g) criteria
Acrylamide Na Na 0.00036 7.2e-4 U.S. EPA Region No, however, there is no
monomer 9 have developed criteria available for
a PRG of 0.11 ecological receptors.
lag/g for soil. Therefore, a~rylamide is
discussed further.
TPH Refer to Compared to 3400 6.8 x 103 100 (g/d) Exceeds the MOE's 1996
MOE, 2004 MOE 1996 100 (h oil) guidelines, therefore, TPH
(O. Reg. criteria, requires additional
153/04) ga~/diesel: 100 investigation
heavy oils: 1000
B[a]P 1.2 Ixg/g in 0.1a 0.080 Dg/g 0.16 [tg/g in 1.2 lag/g in soil; Below the criteria
soil; 0.7b; in soil; soil; considered to be protective
of human health and
ecological receptors for
soil.
Lead 140 [tg/g 200 [tg/g 8.9 to 30 60 Ixg/g 200 Dg/g Not a concern to human
receptors as a result of
direct contact pathways,
however, there is a
potential for mobilization
and leaching into
grou_ ndwater
Arsenic 12 Dg/g 20 lag/g nd nd 20 lag/g Not detected on-Site.
aAgrictfltural Land Use (CCME, 2003)
bResidential Land Use (CCME, 2003)
CAgrictfltural Land Use, Potable water condition (MOE, 2004)
dResidential Land Use, potable water condition (MOE, 2004)
1Criteria from U.S. EPA Region 9 (2002)
Table 2.3.2 Chemicals for Further Investigation Detected in Groundwater
Parameter CCME O. Reg. 153/04 Range of 2 x Max. Component Values Requires further
Guidelines Values Conc. (MOE, 2004) investigation
(pg/L) Detected
Ac~lamide na Na 0.3 gg/L 0.6 gg/L 0.015 lag/L in tap Retained as
monomer in Sw water1.
Benzo[a]pyrene 0.01 [tg/L 0.046 to exceeds 0.01 [tg/L Exceeds MOE Table A
0.440 criteria groundwater standards
[tg/L (ODWQS), therefore, it is
retained for further
investigation.
Copper 24 lag/L 23 ~tg/L 5-7 pg/L 10-14 MOE Table 2 Not retained for further
from ytg/L criteria (PWQO) = assessment
TCLP 23 ~tg/L
study
It should be noted that arsenic levels had been reported to be elevated above O. Reg. 153/04
criteria in error in the Gartner Lee (2001) report. The concentration recorded, following review
13
of the laboratory certificates, was the record applied to barium. Therefore, arsenic was not
detected in PFBs at the OSGC site. Copper was not a concern for human health and did not pose
a risk to aquatic environment under the management measures recommended. From the
screening-level assessment, only total petroleum hydrocarbons, PAHs and lead were retained as
Contaminants of Potential Concem (COPC) for monitoring. Acrylamide, MEK and phenol were
considered to require further research by the MOE. See Section 3.2.
14
3.0 Analysis and Conclusions about the Risks
3.1 Toxicity and Existing Guidelines
In support of the final suite of chemicals to be monitored, The Expert Panel used toxicity
stmunahes or guidelines for each of the chemicals or parameters of concern to answer the
question, why are these substances chosen for monitoring? What is the value of monitoring?
3.1.t. Lead
The historical use of lead bullets and shot at gun clubs has left behind elevated concentrations of
the metal in the soil associated with shooting ranges. Estimates of lead concentrations in soils at
such sites in Florida ranged from 880 to 55,000 mg kg-~ in one study (Cao et al 2003), whereas
200 mg kg'~ is the MOE's Soil Standard for contaminated soils (MOE 2004). In general, lead in
soils is considered to be relatively immobile, especially in soils with neutral to alkaline pH
values. However, a number of research studies have shown that lead can be mobilized in the
presence of organic colloids and that lead-organic complexes can account for large cumulative
losses of lead from surface soils. Because of the large quantities of organic material in berms
constructed with Sound-Sorb, there is a potential for lead to be mobilized. Therefore
concentrations of soluble lead should be measured in the monitoring wells associated with berms
constructed with Sound-Sorb at gun clubs to ensure that the metal does not become an
environmental concern in areas outside the gun club and berm site.
3.1.2 Benzo[a]pyrene (signature chemical for PAHs)
Benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) primarily derived from
incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. It has been identified in ambient air, surface water,
drinking water, waste water, and char-broiled foods (e.g., hamburgers) (IARC, 1983).
B[a]P is readily absorbed following inhalation, oral, and dermal routes of administration
(ATSDR 1990)and is rapidly distributed to several tissues in rats. There is very little data
available conceming the systemic (i.e., non-carcinogenic) effects of B[a]P following
administration in humans, and neither a tolerable daily intake (TDI / RfC) or a reference
concentration (TC/RfC) has been derived for B[a]P.
Numerous epidemiologic studies have shown a clear association between exposure to various
mixtures of PAHs containing B[a]P (e.g., coke oven emissions, roofing tar emissions, and
cigarette smoke) and increased risk of lung cancer and other tumors, although it is difficult to
separate the independent carcinogenic effect of B[a]P from the carcinogenicity of PAH mixtures
(IARC 1983). A suitable data base is available conceming the carcinogenicity orB[alP in
experimental animals. Dietary administration of B[a]P has produced papillomas and carcinomas
of the forestomach in mice (Neal and Rigdon, 1967). Exposure by inhalation has resulted in
benign and malignant tumors of the respiratory and upper digestive tracts of experimental
15
animals (Thyssen et al 1981). Numerous topical application studies have shown that B[a]P
induces skin tumors in several species, although mice appear to be the most sensitive species.
Consistent with Health Canada policies, B[a]P is considered to be a Group II carcinogen. This
designation means that there is evidence that it is probably carcinogenic to humans. Health
Canada has assigned inhalation and oral cancer slope factors to be used in risk assessments.
The Expert Panel noted the presence of PAHs in the MOE sampling of the monitoring wells in
March and May 2003 (Sweeps 1 and 2). Although these PAHs did not likely come from the
berm, PAHs are present in the raw PFBs and have very low permissible levels in drinking water
under the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS). B(a)P was therefore included in the
monitoring program. Sweeps 1 and 2 by the MOE found levels of seven different PAlls in
excess of Table 2 guidelines. The draft SSRA did not retain PAHs as a COPC because they
were not detected in Sweep 3 (October 2003; filtered samples) or in drinking water wells. The
Panel felt that PAHs should be included in on-going monitoring programs.
3.1.3 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs) describe a mixture of organic compounds found in or
derived from oil, bitumen and coal. Petroleum products are also in gasoline, heating and
lubricating oils. They are characterized by the number of carbons in the compound; gas and
diesel usually contain less than 24 carbons, and heavy oils more than 24 carbons. The toxicity of
each compound depends on carbon number. Small molecular weight hydrocarbons are of
concem because they are highly mobile in soil. However, they are readily biodegradable by
naturally present soil bacteria. Higher carbon chain oils, however, are not as mobile but tend to
persist once released to the environment. The concem is related to their persistence in the
environment, and their potential to reach human receptors or other ecological receptors through
various pathways of exposure.
The CCME has developed Canada-Wide Standards for petroleum hydrocarbons in soil for
various land uses. The CCME methodology is based on the fractionafion of TPH into four
distinct fractions (Fl to F4 corresponding to -- 6-10 carbons, 11-16 carbons, 17-34 carbons and
higher than 34 carbons). The generic screening-level criteria developed by the CCME for
protection of human health have been adopted by MOE (2004). The CCME's User Guidance
manual (CCME, 2001) provides these criteria. For example, for the F3 and F4 fractions, the
component values considered to be protective of human health following direct contact pathways
such as ingestion are reported to be 18,000 lag/g and 25,000 lag/g, respectively.
The PFB used in Sound-Sorb contains TPH. Testing for TPH is recommended since TPH is
present in the PFB at amounts that exceed Table 1 and 2 guidelines and since TPH can act as an
indicator of the possible presence of organic contaminants that could be a concern but are not
being monitored. The Expert Panel reviewed the analysis of the hydrocarbons contained in some
samples of the PFB and determined that they were similar to a degraded oil mixture and easily
capable of being degraded further to levels below guidelines. The most toxic compounds of
TPHs are usually the PAHs and these were well below concem levels in the PFB samples tested
by the MOE.
16
3.1.4 Acrylamide
Acrylamide is a chemical that is used in the manufacture of plastics, synthetic rubber, and
several types of polyacrylamide copolymers. Based on limited human data and more extensive
animal studies of acrylamide exposure, acrylamide has neurotoxic, genotoxic and reproductive
health effects. Neumtoxicity appears to be the most sensitive endpoint. Using animal data, a
NOAEL for neurotoxicity of 0.5 mg/kg/day has been set (FAO/WHO, 2002; ECB, 2002).
Acrylamide is a known animal carcinogen. However, there have not been sufficient studies in
human populations to determine whether it is considered to be a human carcinogen. Acrylamide
is produced in foods that are baked or fried, most likely as a reaction between the amino acid
asparagine and natural sugars at high temperatures. Because dietary intake cannot be easily
measured it is difficult to compare exposure to acrylamide in epidemiological studies with
differences in outcome in terms of cancers.
Polyacrylamide is used in some jurisdictions in the treatment of drinking water and wastewater.
This use of polyacrylamide results in the potential for human exposure to acrylamide through
ingestion of drinking water. In the WHO's Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality (3fa edition,
2004), the guideline value for acrylamide is listed at 0.5 micrograms per litre~. In the United
States, there is an enforceable maximum contaminant level standard for acrylamide in drinking
water. Specifically, The United States Environmental Protection Agency requires that the
operators of water treatment systems that use acrylamide must certify that the polyacrylamide
used contains no more than 0.05% acrylamide monomer when it is added at a dose of 1 mg/L or
equivalent dose, (see www.epa, gov/safewater/index.html). There are no Canadian drinking
water criteria for acrylamide. Region 9 of the United States Environmental Protection Office has
set a provisional guideline of 0.015 micrograms/L (U.S. EPA Region 9, 2002).
3.1.$ Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), also known as 2-butanone, butanone, or methyl acetone, is used as a
solvent in the application of protective coatings (vamishes) and adhesives (glues and cements),
in magnetic tape production, in the de-waxing of lubricating oil, in vinyl film manufacture, and
in food processing. MEK has been detected as a natural component of numerous foods,
including: raw chicken breast, milk, nuts, cheese (e.g., Beaufort, Gruyere, and cheddar), bread
dough and nectarines at concentrations ranging from 0.3 to 19 lag/g (ATSDR, 1992 and WHO,
1992). MEK is also found in tobacco smoke and volatile releases from building materials and
consumer products (ATSDR, 1992).
An occupational study reported by the World Health Organization indicate that of 51 Italian
workers chronically exposed to MEK, exposure was associated with slight, but not statistically
significant, reduced nerve conduction velocities and other symptoms such as: headache, loss of
appetite and weight, gastrointestinal upset, dizziness, dermatitis, and muscular hypotrophy,
~ The WHO indicates that this represents the concentration in drinking water associated with an upper bound excess
lifetime cancer risk if 10-s or one additional cancer per 100,000 of the population ingesting drinking water containing
acwlamide at the guideline value for 70 years. The WHO also notes that this represents a rough estimate of risk,
which is based on a hypothetical, mathematical model, albeit a conservative one.
17
however, no clinically recognizable neuropathy was cited (Freddi et al., 1982 cited in WHO,
1992).
The epidemiologic studies from which one could draw conclusions about carcinogenic risks in
the human population are currently inconclusive with respect to exposure to MEK (U.S. EPA,
2003). Thus under EPA's draft revised cancer guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1999), "data are
inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential" for MEK. However, it is noted
that MEK has not been tested for carcinogenicity in animals by the oral or inhalation routes.
Animal studies are available and have been used to set regulatory guidance values, including an
RID and RfC value for MEK. These values are available at U.S. EPA IRIS website located at
~v~v.epa. gov/IRIS.
The potential for MEK to be generated from the berms was a concem for the community. There
is currently no reliable detection method available to characterize potential exposure to MEK.
The Expert Panel felt that the MOE should develop such methods. See Section 3.2.
3.1.6 Phenol
Phenol is a mono-substituted aromatic hydrocarbon, produced from both natural and
anthropogenic processes, and is naturally occumng in some foods, human and animal wastes,
decomposing organic material, and is produced within the human gut from the metabolism of
aromatic amino acids. Currently, the largest use of phenol is as an intermediate in the production
of phenolic resins, which are used in the plywood, adhesive, construction, automotive, and
appliance industries. Because of its anesthetic effects, phenol is also used in medicines such as
ointments, ear and nose drops, cold sore lotions, throat lozenges and sprays (e.g., over the
counter sprays such as Cepastat® and Chloraseptic® labels), and antiseptic lotions (U.S. EPA,
2002), therefore low-dose human exposure to phenol would not be completely unexpected.
The U.S. EPA recently re-evaluated phenol (U.S. EPA, 2002) and has determined that the human
and animal data from carcinogenicity studies is inadequate for use in determining a toxicity
reference value for this endpoint (i.e., Category D: not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity).
The U.S. EPA indicate that they have established a chronic oral reference dose (RfD) for phenol
based on decreased matemal weight gain from a rat developmental study (U.S. EPA, 2002). The
U.S. EPA's Region 9 have established an preliminary remediation goal (PRG) for soil based on
the non-carcinogenic effects related to exposure to phenol at 1.8 x 104 lag/g (U.S. EPA Region 9,
2002). The Ontario Ministry of the Environment's Soil and Groundwater Standards for phenol
are listed as 40 lag/g and 4200 lag/L, respectively (MOE 2004).
3.2 MOE Research Component
There is a significant concentration of acrylamide polymer in PFB. There is a small amount of
acrylamide monomer in this material that could leach into groundwater. The detection limit for
acrylamide monomer initially used by the MOE (0.30 ug/L) was above the U. S. EPA Region 9
PRG for acrylamide in drinking water (0.015 ug/L). The MOE now has the capacity to measure
18
acrylamide monomer with a detection limit of 0.010 ug/L. The Expert Panel felt that this
concern should be followed by the MOE and that sampling should be undertaken on a research
basis by the MOE rather than a regulatory requirement put on berm users.
There is currently no reliable detection method available to characterize potential exposure to
MEK. The MOE should develop such methods. There is the potential for greater concentrations
of phenols to leach from the berms as they mature. The MOE should sample for MEK and total
phenols in the monitoring wells at berm sites to determine whether these compounds might
present a risk to human health or the environment.
19
4.0 Algorithm for the Use of PFBs in Berms at Gun Clubs
4.1
General Principles of the Algorithm for Sound-Sorb Berm
Management
The Expert Panel believes that in principle, the recycling of materials such as PFB presents a
favorable use ofa biosolid as an alternative to landfilling, but the recycling and reusing waste
materials must have very. low risk for adverse effects on the environment. The Panel felt that
such a policy was appropriate for PFB mixed with mineral soil if the following conditions were
met:
· The reuse of the PFB was subject to a strict monitoring regime/protocol;
· Hydrogeological assessments of existing Sound-Sorb berms must be conducted to ensure
that the environment is adequately protected in these cases (already done for OSG-C);
· Any new construction ofberms using Sound-Sorb was controlled by MOE regulation;
· The algorithm developed must distinguish between existing berms and proposed
development of new berms.
· Any algorithm for the use of Sound-Sorb to create new berms require that the PFBs be
composted prior to use in making Sound-Sorb.
The algorithm described below can also be found represented schematically in Figure 1 (p. 33).
4.1.1 Sensitive Sites
Before a berm can be constructed at a new site, determination must be made if the site is
sensitive as defined in this section. If the area is sensitive, aberm cannot be constructed. An
area is defined as sensitive if:
· it is adjacent or within an area of natural significance including those areas as defined in
Section 41(3) of the Records of Site Condition (RSC Regulation) - O. Reg. 153/04.
· it is adjacent to or 30 meters from a water body.
· it were to be constructed on shallow soil property. Shallow soil is defined here as where t/3
or more of the area of the property consists of soil equal to or less than 2 metres in depth to
rock or bedrock.
4.2 Hydrogeological Assessment
Paper fibre biosolids should only be used in berms at gun clubs under a Certificate of Approval
from the Ministry of the Environment. In order to apply for a Certificate of Approval the
proponent for a new berm should engage the services of an APGO-certified hydrogeologist to
assess the proposed site. The hydrogeological assessment should determine:
· Whether or not it is a sensitive site as set out in Section 4.1.1.
2O
Whether or not the site is or is likely to be controlled under watershed protection
legislation;
Potential pathways for runoff from the proposed berm(s) to reach surface water;
Existing information on soils, bedrock and groundwater at the site with respect to the
potential for contaminants to reach human and environmental receptors;
Sufficient wells will be drilled and samples taken by a qualified person that are required
for assessing the site;
Locations for additional monitoring wells may be proposed to further establish direction
of groundwater flow, assess upstream and downstream chemical parameters in the
groundwater, detect leachate contamination of the groundwater, and impact of leachate
off-site.
The hydrogeologist may recommend and/or the MOE may require more extensive
hydrogeological assessment or a full SSRA to characterize potential pathways of contaminants to
human and environmental receptors before a Certificate of Approval is issued.
4.3 Certificate of Approval
The MOE should not issue a certificate of approval for sensitive sites or sites controlled against
such use by watershed protection legislation. The Certificate of Approval shall cover:
The materials that may be used:
Construction and maintenance of the berm;
A groundwater monitoring program;
· A requirement to allow the MOE access to the monitoring wells to conduct research;
Other conditions the MOE may require.
The MOE may choose to use legal instruments that provide equal or better protection than
Certificates of Approval to control these berms.
4.4 Materials for use in Berm Construction
gec~ns
constructed at gun dubs that include PFB shall contain only the following materials:
Paper fibre biosilids composted according to the recently amended Ontario MOE
Composting Guidelines (MOE May 2004) at a site controlled by a Certificate of
Approval.
Uncontaminated mineral soil as needed to construct a stable berm. This material will be
well mixed with the composted PFB;
Other organic compost intended to support the growth of the vegetative cover. This
compost shall be provided only from sources in compliance with the Ontario MOE
Composting Guidelines (MOE May 2004).
21
The PFB should be transported to the composting site unmixed with other materials as a waste.
The composted PFB for any bulk use should remain under regulatory control.
4.5 Construction and Maintenance
The Certificate of Approval should set out proper procedures for the construction and
maintenance ofberms. As a minimum these should include:
· Measures to prevent erosion of the berm material by wind or rain during the construction
period;
· Installation of any additional monitoring wells prior to completion of berm construction;
· A requirement to provide vegetated cover and maintain it if additional material is added
to the berm;
· A requirement to repair fissures in the berm should they develop;
· A requirement for a survey of and a report to the MOE on the condition of the berm at
least four times a year.
· Berms should contain at least 30 percent mineral soil that is well-mixed with the PFBs in
order to ensure structural stability.
4.6 Monitoring Program
Paper waste releases significant quantities of chloride into leachate as it decomposes. The berm
site should be initially monitored for chloride leachate in the spring and the fall in at least one
upstream well and sufficient downstream wells (two or more) to detect when the early leachate
reaches groundwater. Paper fibre biosolids have high concentrations of chloride. This chloride
is highly mobile and most of it will leach out of the berms in the first few years.
The average concentration of chloride ions in the Atlantic Packa.~ing paper fibre sludge from the
Whitby Plant bunker, sampled in October 2001, was 135 mg kg'. Samples of soil taken from the
Sound-Sorb berm at the Oshawa Gun and Skeet Club at 45-65 cm depth and at 50-100 cm
contained 540 and 880 mg kgqof chloride, respectively. Concentrations of chloride in
background soils in the same location were approximately 3 mg kg-~. This data dearly indicates
that chloride ions are moving down in the berm and will eventually reach the monitoring wells.
As there are few, if any, impediments to the movement of chloride ions in soils and sediments, it
is to be expected that the appearance of increased chloride ions in the monitoring wells would
indicate the arrival into the wells ofleachate water from the Sound-Sorb berm. As other possible
contaminants would arrive at a later time, the appearance of chloride ions in the well waters
should trigger the monitoring of lead, PAHs, TPH, pH and BOD in all subsequent well-water
analyses.
It could be argued that, like other composts, the composted PFB should no longer require MOE
and monitoring. However the bulk use of composted PFBs presents several concems:
· the composting process is not complete at the point the Ontario Composting Guidelines
22
would be met;
depending on environmental conditions where berms were constructed the further
decomposition could become acidic and generate an acid leachate;
the use of composted PFBs in berms concentrates large quantities of the material in one
location.
The sites where Sound-Sorb has been used have a potential for soil contamination by the
historic use of lead.
In the first year a baseline determination (spring and fall) of lead, PAHs including benzo (a)
pyrene, TPH, pH and BOD will be made. These parameters should also be monitored at least
twice a year (spring and fall) once chloride leachate has impacted the groundwater. Testing for
chloride may then be discontinued. All testing should be done at a laboratory accredited for the
purpose. Testing should continue in perpetuity as long as the berm has an impact on the site.
The parameters to be tested for are: lead, PAHs including Benzo(a)pyrene, TPH, pH and BOD.
Testing for pH is included as a simple measure to assess the decomposition in the berm. A highly
acid pH without increases in lead or other metal contaminants may indicate that the berm sits on
clean soil. Much of the groundwater at shallow depths enters surface waters within a short
period of time. BOD should therefore be part of the monitoring program.
Ail sampling under the monitoring program should be done by a qualified individual.
4.7 Remediation
Lead and benzo(a)pyrene levels should be compared with the Ontario Drinking-Water Quality
Standards. If the ODWS standard for either of these substances is exceeded for groundwater
leaving the site, the MOE should take measures to mitigate the risk of contamination of offsite
groundwater. These measures could include:
Confirmatory or other further study
SSRA or other risk assessment
Removal of the berm
Lifting the berm and installing a leachate collection system
Removal of contaminated soil
4.8 Management of Existing Berms
A hydrogeological assessment as described in Section 4.2 should be done. The Panel felt that the
investigations already done at the OSGC site meet this requirement. Monitoring wells should be
drilled and the baseline parameters measured as outlined in Section 4.6 in the spring and fall.
If the baseline assessment shows the potential for lead or benzo(a)pyrene to move off-site, the
MOE should take remedial measures as set out in Section 4.7.
23
If the site conditions determined by the hydrogeological assessment are satisfactory, the MOE
should issue a Certificate of Approval that:
Limits additions of PFB to the berm for repair to composted PFB;
Requires an on-going maintenance program as set out in Section 4.5;
Requires an on-going monitoring program as set out in Section 4.6;
The MOE should take mitigative measures as set out in Section 4.7 if on-going monitoring
reveals the potential for lead or benzo(a)pyrene to move off-site.
4.9 Caveats on Application of the Algorithm
This algorithm relates only to the paper fibre biosolids produced by Atlantic Packaging at its
Whitby and Scarborough operations. The data available to the Panel was on PFB from Atlantic
Packaging and its historical use in Sound-Sorb in a number of berms at gun clubs, primarily
OSGC. The Panel therefore could only come to conclusion with respect to the use of PFBs from
this source when then are mixed with clean mineral soil. The Panel's conclusions do not apply
to PFBs if there is a difference in composition that is likely to increase the risk to human or
environmental health. This difference could come from either the feedstock or the process
chemicals. Any generalizations drawn from these conclusions depend on evidence that indicates
a greater or lesser risk from other materials.
The information that the Expert Panel reviewed applied to berms constructed at gun clubs. The
MOE should consider these principles for berms constructed at other locations.
24
5.0 Answers to the Three Questions
5.1 Question 1: Does Sound-Sorb, as used as a berm construction
material, present a risk to human health or the environment and what is the
nature of that risk?
The Expert Panel felt that it could not come to a conclusion on all of the possible risks to human
health and the environment based on the data it had. It also felt that a more systematic collection
of data at berms would not provide a comprehensive assessment of the risks. On the other hand
the Expert Panel believed that the bulk use of PFB in berms could be managed in a way that
would reduce any risk to human health and the environment to a minimum. The Expert Panel
came to the conclusion that this material could with proper regulatory control be used to
construct berms without causing an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.
5.1.1 Recommendation
The Expert Panel therefore recommends that:
1. There is no need to ban the use of PFB mixed with mineral soil (Sound-Sorb) for bulk
use in berms.
5.2
Question 2: If yes, to what degree and what management measures, if
any, can be instituted to eliminate or minimize the risks to acceptable
levels?
The berm at the OSGC has not been in place long enough for significant leachate to reach the
monitoring wells. The berm also have not been in place long enough to determine the risk for
anaerobic decomposition of the material that would render the leachate more acidic. No
evaluation had been done of possible soil contamination at the site where the berms were located.
The Expert Panel believes that there is a potential for anaerobic decomposition of the PFBs in
Sound-Sorb material creating an acid leachate. Because of the historical use of lead on gun club
sites there was a possible risk of mobilization of lead from soil beneath berms. The high level of
organic material in the berms also presented a risk of elevated biological oxygen demand (BOD)
for surface water receptors at sensitive sites.
5.2.1 Recommendations
The Expert Panel therefore recommends that:
2. There is no need to remove the OSC, C berm provided long-term monitoring of the
groundwater is continued.
25
o
Existing berms at other gun clubs should have a hydrogeological assessment. A
monitoring regime in accord with the algorithm found in Chapter 4 should be established.
Removal of a berm would only be appropriate as a mitigation option if contaminants in
excess of the Ontario Drinking-Water Quality Standards were found in groundwater
leaving the site or significant risks to human or environmental health were found on an
SSRA or other risk assessment.
The Expert Panel came to the conclusion that PFBs before being used as a berm construction
material should be composted for the following reasons:
the anecdotal reports from several Tier 2 members indicated that Sound-Sorb when it was
initially used in a berm generated enough heat to prevent the growth of vegetation for one
growing season even when a layer of compost was applied on top;
e concern had been raised by Tier 2 that E. coli had been found and pathogenic organisms
were potentially present in PFBs;
e TPH was the only COPC in excess of Table 1 criteria in the PFBs. The specific TPHs
would to some extent biodegradable in a composting process.
The uncertainties with respect to these concems could be alleviated by composting. The
recently amended Ontario Composting Guidelines (MOE May 2004) are adequate for this
purpose and should be applied.
5.2.2 Recommendation
The Expert Panel therefore recommends that:
4. PFB should be composted before its use in a berm.
It could be argued that, like other composts, the composted PFB should no longer be considered
a waste. However the bulk use of composted PFBs presents several concems:
the composting process is not complete at the point the Ontario Composting Guidelines
would be met;
· depending on environmental conditions where berms were constructed the further
decomposition could become acidic and generate an acid leachate;
· the use ofcomposted PFBs in berms concentrates large quantities of the material in one
location.
The sites where Sound-Sorb has been used have a potential for soil contamination by the historic
use of lead.
The Expert Panel believed that site-specific factors therefore were relevant to the safety of the
use of this material in bulk and that the site locations where it was used should be regulated.
The Panel felt that monitoring the site was an efficient way to manage this use, both with respect
to costs and reassurance to the community.
26
5.2.3 Recommendation
The Expert Panel therefore recommends that:
Before a berm constructed of PFB and mineral soil is placed at any new location, a
hydmgeological assessment should be done, and a SSRA done if the assessment indicates
that one is necessary according to algorithm found in Chapter 4. The use of the proposed
site for a new berm should be subject to MOE control by a Certificate of Approval or
legal instrument that provides equal or better protection for human health and the
environment.
5.3 Question 3: Given the intent to apply the findings across the
Province, under what conditions should Sound-Sorb not be used or its use
restricted?
5.3.1 Caveats Regarding the Conclusions
The Expert Panel noted that according to current regulation the existing berms could contain
wastes other than PFBs. To the Panel's knowledge, none of the sites where existing berms are
located had been assessed for possible contamination of the soil at the site before the berm had
been constructed. These considerations reinforce the need for monitoring groundwater wells
around the existing berms in perpetuity. The Panel recommends that monitoring wells be used
for new berms as well because information on the potential leachate from mature berms is not
available. The Panel does not exclude the possibility that extensive further study of the PFB
material and a thorough assessment of the hydrogeological situation at a particular site might
provide sufficient evidence for the MOE to permit the use of the PFB material at a specific site
without monitoring wells.
The Expert Panel recognizes that the berms are likely to be covered with a thin layer of compost
from yard waste/green box sources to assist vegetation of the berms. The Panel did not have
data on the composition of and did not come to any conclusion with respect to the actual
compost used at OSGC. Such compost should meet MOE composting guidelines.
The Experts Panel did not come to any conclusions with respect to the safety of PFB for
application to agricultural land (composted or not composted) with regard to human health,
environmental or agricultural criteria. There are five current uses of PFB onto land in Ontario:
· As a soil amendment on agricultural land;
· In land reclamation in the Welland area;
· As a soil mulch in the horticultural industry;
· As a component in Nitro-sorb, where it is mixed with composted leaf and yard waste;
· As a component of seed bedding materials in the nursery industry,.
The MOE may choose to use legal instruments equivalent or better than Certificates of Approval.
The recommendations set out minimum requirements. The MOE may add additional
requirements as it sees fit as new information becomes available. Under the management
algorithm proposed here the MOE could require, based on its own investigations, monitoring for
27
other substances for which evidence exists or becomes available.
Paper fibre biosolids are a waste. Their bulk use in the environment even after composting
requires regulatory control. Paper fiber biosolids are used in a number of other bulk applications
for land application mixed with compost or as a sole soil amendment. The Terms of Reference
for the Expert Panel did not include these uses. The Panel felt that Sound-Sorb should not be
used in an uncontrolled manner as an exempt waste as it is at present. The Panel believes that
regulatory instruments that would control Sound-Sorb in its use in berms should provides the
means to exert the regulatory control that the MOE may deem appropriate for other bulk uses of
PFB.
5.3.2 Recommendation
The Expert Panel therefore recommends that:
Paper fibre biosolids should be controlled by Certificates of Approval or legal
instruments that provide equal or better protection for human health and the environment
at all stages from its generation through transport, composting and final use in the
construction of berms. The use of paper fibre biosolid material mixed with mineral soil
should also be subject to MOE control with respect to its preparation and use in the
environment by a Certificate of Approval or legal instrument that provides equal or better
protection for human health and the environment.
28
6.0 Recommendations
1. There is no need to ban the use of PFB mixed with mineral soil (Sound-Sorb) for bulk use in
berms.
2. There is no need to remove the OSGC berm provided long-term monitoring of the
groundwater is continued.
3. Existing berms at other gun clubs should have a hydrogeological assessment. A monitoring
regime in accord with the algorithm found in Chapter 4 should be established. Removal of a
berm would only be appropriate as a mitigation option if contaminants in excess of the Ontario
Drinking-Water Quality Standards were found in groundwater leaving the site or significant risks
to human or environmental health were found on an SSRA or other risk assessment.
4. PFB should be composted before it is used in a berm.
5. Before a berm constructed of PFB and mineral soil is placed at any new location, a
hydrogeological assessment should be done, and a SSRA done if the assessment indicates that
one is necessary according to algorithm found in Chapter 4. The use of the proposed site for a
new berm should be subject to MOE control by a Certificate of Approval or legal instrument that
provides equal or better protection for human health and the environment.
6. Paper fibre biosolids should be controlled by Certificates of Approval or legal instruments that
provide equal or better protection for human health and the environment at all stages from its
generation, through transport, composting and final use in the construction of berms. The use of
paper fibre biosolid material mixed with mineral soil should also be subject to MOE control with
respect to its preparation and use in the environment by a Certificate of Approval or legal
instrument that provides equal or better protection for human health and the environment.
29