Cover Story: On-Farm Biosolids Storage

Friday, February 29, 2008

A new business opportunity for farmers, or more aggravation for the neighbours?

by Mary Baxter

Storing municipal waste or other biosolids on farms is not new to Ontario - provided what was being stored would be spread on the property. But now some farmers are looking to store waste that will be spread elsewhere, and local residents are up in arms

In 2006, Nick and Colleen Wiendels experienced the unthinkable. The couple, who farm near Poplar Hill just north of London, saw their hog barn burn to the ground - for the second time.

Losses were devastating. All 1,000 animals in the barn were destroyed.

The financial hit approached $1 million and it took weeks to clean up the debris. The first time around, in 2005, 1,400 animals were destroyed and losses amounted to about $750,000.

Though insurance covered the losses in both fires, the Wiendels decided not to rebuild and they have struggled over what steps to take next. "There's been a lot of uncertainty," admits Colleen.

Then, last year the couple looked into the possibility of using the barn's five-chambered manure pit, which had survived both fires, to store treated municipal sewage - human waste more politely categorized as organic biosolids. They found a willing partner in Ancaster-based Bartels Environmental Services, which handles the material for small communities such as Walkerton and Fergus.

For the Wiendels, the partnership represented an opportunity to earn income from an already existing resource. Ben Bartels, the owner of Bartels Environmental, says that the pits would give his company the convenience of its own storage facility located close to the farms where the sewage would eventually be spread. The sewage would come from Elora, he says.

Extended storage of biosolids in general, and treated municipal sewage in particular, in on-farm lagoons or tanks is not a new idea. For years, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has permitted this practice.

It was often delivered as part and parcel of a site-specific land application approval. Until 2006, the approval came with the condition that what was being stored would be spread on the property. Today, those wanting extended storage of biosolids in farm lagoons or tanks must make a separate application for certification from the ministry.

What's being proposed for the Wiendels' property, however, is different. If approved, Bartels, who would rent the pit and operate the site, would be permitted to spread sewage stored in the pit on farm fields not necessarily owned by the Wiendels as long as those fields had approval to receive the material.

It's not the first time Bartels has made arrangements with a farmer to use a former manure pit to store municipal sewage over winter. But it is the first time the company has considered using a former pit as a central transfer station to serve different farm properties. If it's successful, Bartels says he'd want to explore establishing the arrangement elsewhere, "depending on what contracts we get."

In 2005, Ontario produced 300,000 metric tonnes of dry biosolids. Of this amount, 40 per cent is applied directly to agricultural lands. Industry statistics indicate that 3.2 per cent of the province's cropland is needed to accommodate this volume. Indeed, MHBC, an urban planning firm that has acted as a consultant to the Wiendels and Bartels, estimates that the annual volume of biosolids applied to farm fields within Middlesex Centre alone is 880,000 gallons with a dry matter content ranging from two to seven per cent.

Those involved in the industry note that the application of biosolids to agricultural lands is a practice that has been in effect in Ontario for 30 years. But, as the Wiendels' proposal indicates, changes are afoot as to how the industry is delivering the material to the farm. These changes may signal a new business opportunity for those with excess manure storage capacity. But at what cost, neighbours are asking?

Several of the Wiendels' neighbours are dead set against the idea of using former manure tanks to establish a central storage site for municipal sewage destined to be spread on different area farms. They fear sewage leaks, source water contamination and traffic problems and have succeeded in blocking the proposal at the municipal level. Both sides are now headed to hearings at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) this spring. Whether pro or against, those involved recognize the outcome will be precedent-setting.

Vehement protests

When the Wiendels and Bartels started to work on the details of their deal, they knew that there would be legislative hoops. Transfer stations are considered waste disposal sites under the Environmental Protection Act and must satisfy requirements quite different from those in place for temporary on-farm storage (defined as 10 days or less) of biosolids.

A transfer station, for example, requires an environmental certificate of approval. Posting the application to the ministry's publicly accessible Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) registry is just one of the application process' mandatory requirements. Permission to store biosolids temporarily, on the other hand, can still be obtained as part of a site-specific approval which does not involve an EBR posting.

For transfer stations, those applying may also have to seek input from other jurisdictions in order to obtain provincial approval. In the Wiendels' case, it was recognized that rezoning would be necessary because agriculture was the property's only permitted use. So the couple and Bartels' representatives embarked on their legal journey by first applying for property rezoning from Middlesex Centre, the municipality in which the property is located.

The vehemence of the community protest, which erupted during and after a public meeting last May, came as a shock. Colleen Wiendels says that, since the proposal was made public, many of their neighbours, some of whom were old friends, have shunned them. In order to cast doubt on the proposal, others implied that the Wiendels' barn fires took place because of bad management, though Colleen points out that in both cases fire investigators had determined the couple were not at fault. Ultimately, the couple's management skills are irrelevant, she says, noting that, if approved, Bartels would manage the station.

The Wiendels have also attempted - so far unsuccessfully - to counter rumours about the integrity of the tanks. They commissioned an independent engineer's report, which found that some of the concrete had been softened by the fire but that the tanks' overall structure was intact. Some minor adjustments and repairs will be needed to obtain approval for the new use.

"The whole pit right now has slats still on top," Nick explains. "They want to come put a layer of heavy duty plastic on top to keep the rainwater out." A method to account for the sewage would also need to be introduced, the couple says.

A report on the issue prepared by the township's planners supported the Wiendels' rezoning application. After consultation with other jurisdictions, the report's authors concluded that the proposed use "is both agricultural and agriculturally commercially/industrially related" and that the application "is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and is in conformity with both the County and Municipal Official Plans." It recommends the rezoning be permitted.

Green ribbon campaign

Nevertheless, those resisting the proposal stood firm and, at its Sept. 19, 2007 meeting, Middlesex Centre's council rejected the Wiendels' application. The reason given was that the proposal lacked an environmental certificate of approval and there was no evidence that an application for approval had been made. The Wiendels and Bartels subsequently appealed the council's decision to the OMB.

Chris Bailey, a member of an organization called No Unsafe Biosolid Storage on Rural Ground that is fighting the Wiendels' proposal, says that her group has asked for status at the hearing. If granted, it would be allowed to state its case.

The group's core membership is about 20, but meetings on the subject have had attendances of 200. Along with asking for status, it publishes regular newsletters for the members about the issue and has launched a campaign asking those who support the group's position to display a green ribbon on their mailbox.

Bailey describes herself as a hobby farmer who lives two concessions away from the proposed site. She says that odour is a concern but not the greatest one. And, while it may not entirely like it, the group isn't opposed to the spreading of treated biosolids per se.

It is concerned, however, about the amount of heavy truck traffic the facility might generate on roads that are not built for that purpose.

A private engineer's report has estimated that the total annual truck traffic volume to be less than the 150-170 a year which used the road when the pig operation was functioning. That estimate's not good enough, says Bailey, pointing out that the actual volume of trucks, most of which would arrive during winter months, is still not known.

The idea of converting "a 950,000 gallon manure pit from a twice-burned down pig barn," into sewage storage is of even greater concern, she says, despite the private engineer's report.

Ivan Speiran, who owns a 50-acre farm adjacent to the Wiendels' property, shares Bailey's concerns about the potential for leaks and their impact on the local water table. He says that the pit appears to have a lot of cracks. Along with a drilled well near the barn, there is some speculation that an uncapped, abandoned dug well could also be in the vicinity, he says. He's also worried about what effect the operation might have on property values.

What makes the situation even more unnerving is that, so far, the company's plan of action in the event of a spill is murky, Bailey adds. At first, it looked like Bartels didn't have any plan. "The second time, when we really took them to task publicly about it, they said, "˜well we can have trucks there in three hours.' So if you've got a ditch full, or if it's entering a well - and there is one close to where they're storing - in three hours you can have a lot of damage to the water system."

Bailey says that concern about the proposal permeates the community. However, she admits that some traditional farmers may not like the idea but are even more uncomfortable with the prospect of someone else telling them what they can and cannot do with their land. "I think this is a big issue that's been sleeping," she says, suggesting that it deserves the attention of provincial policy-makers.

Linda Peters, who lives across from the Wiendels' home farm and about a quarter of a mile from the former hog barn, agrees. "It's a present issue" says Peters. "This thing about storing (municipal sewage) in sites that are not even government sites, it's completely new," she says. "It's kind of scary because there are absolutely no regulations around it."

She, Bailey and Speiran fear that, if the Wiendels' proposal is approved, it will simply open the way for future expansion on the property and possibly motivate others within the municipality to do the same thing. "It opens up the whole door for any hauling company to approach any facility which they figure is suitable for storage," Peters says.

Not new to Ontario

Those involved in the industry say that the use of farms with manure pits as transfer stations for biosolids is not as new as it seems. Don Hoekstra, chair of the residuals and biosolids committee of the Water Environment Association of Ontario (WEAO), a professional trade association for the province's water pollution control industry, is among them. Hoekstra, a consultant and contractor specializing in water treatment, says that the practice can be found in jurisdictions other than Ontario.

He says that he used former manure tanks to store biosolids in an Illinois project about 15 years ago. In that instance, tanks from a former dairy operation stored material from a nearby food processor. The application site was adjacent to the storage structure. "It's a very effective way to have the material stored at the site so it avoids double trucking and all those sorts of things," he says.

Even in Ontario there are at least two similar arrangements in effect.

One of these is located in the Township of Wellington Central, home to communities such as Elora and Fergus. Under the arrangement, the township stores treated sewage over the winter months in two former manure pits.

The pits are adjacent to the fields where the material is spread.

A monthly expense of about $5,000 to store the material in privately-run storage lagoons was what motivated the township to find a more cost-effective and local solution to storing the sludge. The agreement to use the pits ends this year (MOE guidelines cap biosolids spreading agreements at five years).

Joanne Ross-Juj, the township's mayor, says that searching for a similar arrangement elsewhere in the township just "isn't going to be adequate for the amount that we are going to be experiencing." She points out that the municipality is targeted for an "incredible increase" in population over the next few years. It has received a $900,000 grant from the province to expand its storage capacity for winter months. The facility is expected to be up and running in 2009. If there's a gap, the municipality will once again send the sewage to privately-operated storage lagoons.

Yet, in all of these instances, storage took place on the same property where the material was spread. The idea of using these tanks to store biosolids destined for spreading on other properties does appear to be a new twist on an older theme. And it's not only the Wiendels and the Bartels who are considering the approach.

Last November, the MOE approved the establishment of a transfer station for municipal biosolids on a farm property in Northern Ontario to serve Smooth Rock Falls and Kapuskasing. Ministry officials say that the farm, owned by Loyola Sylvain, previously had certification to store material which was going to be used on the farm for extended periods of time.

The new approval enables the material to be spread on other properties certified to receive biosolids. In this instance, the storage has been constructed specifically for the purpose of holding biosolids.

An application by Ontario Greenways Inc. to get certification for using the manure tanks of another former Middlesex County hog operation as a transfer station also quietly appeared on the ministry's Environmental Bill of Rights registry last year. The Middlesex property was formerly owned by 3M Swine.

The barns that the pits serviced burned down in 2006.

In this case, the Mitchell-based company wants to store wastewater from meat processing in the tanks.

Spokesperson Steve Gloor says that Ontario Greenways has several other arrangements with farmers in southwestern Ontario to use their manure pits to store the material. In these cases, however, the material is spread on fields of the same property where it is stored. He confirms that the Middlesex site marks the first time the company has sought approval to use such tanks for a transfer station.

Like the Wiendels, Ontario Greenways' proposal stalled at the municipal level when the Township of Lucan Biddulph council rejected a rezoning application on Nov. 5, 2007. Obtaining municipal approval for such a use on the property was a condition of the operation's environmental certification. As was the case with the Wiendels' project, public meeting records show that the Ontario Greenways proposal met with considerable local protest. Concerns revolved around truck traffic volumes and the potential for leaks into water systems. Ontario Greenways is appealing the Lucan Biddulph council decision to the OMB.

Daunting paperwork

Do these applications and approvals reflect a new trend in waste storage and a potential new income stream for those with excess manure storage?

Paul Sims, a regional program co-ordinator with the MOE, doubts it. He estimates that there are 50-100 facilities for on-farm storage of biosolids in the province. Most are used to store waste from the food-processing industry and many were constructed specifically for that purpose, he says. In contrast, "the storage of municipal biosolids in existing manure tanks is not a common practice," he says.

The daunting amount of paperwork involved may have something to do with it. To get an existing tank approved, "you'd have to demonstrate that the tank or that the storage in that tank could be done in an environmentally safe manner" to the MOE's environmental assessment and approvals branch. Sims says that items the branch typically requires before granting approval include financial assurance, proof that concerns such as surface and ground water protection and management of odours are addressed as well as posting the proposal on the ministry's EBR registry.

The more public certification process now in effect may also dissuade some. At one time, regulations provided both municipalities and haulers with ways to avoid broad public notification of when they used on-farm tanks to store sewage for an extended period of time, but that changed in 2006.

That was the year the ministry began to require those wanting extended on-farm biosolids storage to obtain a transfer/processing certificate of approval, even if the waste was being spread on the same farm where it was being stored. Sims says that the move was intended "to ensure a consistent approach to addressing environmental concerns related to biosolids."

However, preferences about where to store municipal sewage before spreading are changing, points out Hoekstra. While municipal biosolids are typically stored onsite at small sewage plants, offsite storage of the material "is already common in Ontario." In the Regional Municipality of Niagara, for example, treated waste from nearly a dozen water pollution control plants ends up in an offsite lagoon. The Regional Municipality of Halton also uses offsite storage, he says.

Offsite storage is commonly used in liquid land application, Hoekstra notes, though it's usually on property that is municipally owned, controlled or operated property versus on-farm. "But the advantage of having some or all of the storage required on-farm is that you only move it once from the plant to the storage facility and then use it at that location," he says.

Ian Walton, an environmental specialist with the Region of Huronia Environmental Services, also suggests that there may well be potential growth in the storage of municipal sewage away from the sites where it's processed. The privately-owned Simcoe County-based company currently provides 6,000 cubic metres of winter sewage storage in its network of nine storage cells.

Many sewage processing plants in the province are aging, Walton points out. Those jurisdictions with the capital, or which can get infrastructure funding, are revamping their plants to address storage, provided they have the space.

In the meantime, the question remains: what's in it for the farmer to justify the hardship establishing such a facility obviously entails?

Neither the Wiendels nor Bartels would disclose the financial details of their proposed deal. By press time, the Township of Centre Wellington had also refused Better Farming's request

to disclose how much it was paying for the storage service, citing concerns about confidentiality and the need to seek legal counsel on the issue. Ontario Greenways also declined to comment on what advantages the arrangement might have, for either the farmer or themselves.

Yet Colleen Wiendels says it's not just about the money. Smaller municipalities need a contingency plan for their sludge, she says. "When these biosolids aren't able to be delivered and spread, they need to put them somewhere."

And there are regulations governing what is allowable content in the material, she emphasizes. "My husband and I are both convinced that it's safe and that it's good for the land," she says. "We're not going to become millionaires from it, that's for sure, but it's a way to utilize the pit and get the value of the fertilizer." BF