Sewer Use Bylaws in Ontario
Contents
|
Background
There are at least 12,000 industrial, commercial and institutional facilities hooked up to municipal sewer systems across Ontario. These facilities are extremely diverse – including large metal finishing plants, airports, pigment and coating manufacturers, food processors, hospitals, electroplaters, small photo labs, dry cleaners and local dentists’ offices. Collectively, they release a wide range of substances, including toxic metals and persistent organic pollutants, to sewer systems and to downstream municipal sewage treatment plants. Ontario’s sewage treatment plants (STPs) are chiefly designed to treat domestic human waste, and are not equipped to deal with metals or persistent organics. Therefore, some of these substances are only partially degraded in STPs; others tend to accumulate in sewage sludges, and yet others pass untreated into the final effluent and the receiving lake or river. In some cases, these substances may in fact interfere with sewage treatment processes, by poisoning the beneficial microorganisms that are employed to break down human waste. (For further information on STPs, see pages 167-168 of this report, and also The Environmental Impacts of Sewage Treatment Plant Effluents from the ECO’s 2002/2003 annual report, pages 35-49.)
How much toxic waste is discharged to Ontario sewers?
It is hard to quantify the current industrial discharges to Ontario sewer systems, or to say what percentage of these discharges are toxic or hazardous. The Ministry of the Environment has not conducted recent surveys or prepared updated estimates, and currently takes the view that discharges to sewers are a municipal responsibility. However, MOE did plan to control sewer discharges over 10 years ago, and estimated then that Ontario waterways received a combined total of three tonnes of metals and 0.05 tonnes of organic compounds of concern on a daily basis from Ontario’s STP discharges. As well, an estimate prepared by the Ontario Waste Management Corporation in the early 1990s indicated that about 380,000 tonnes of hazardous wastes were discharged to sewers each year in Ontario. More up-to-date information can be gleaned from the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), maintained by Environment Canada. Starting in 2002, the NPRI program began to require certain large STPs to report their releases of certain pollutants, especially metals such as mercury, cadmium and lead. The data clearly show that these plants release significant quantities of metals to waterways, and that sewage sludges also contain significant loadings of metals. The following table summarizes the annual loadings for certain metals from four large Ontario STPs.
Selected Releases by four Ontario Sewage Treatment Plants (NPRI data for 2002)
| STP location | Mercury (kg) | Cadmium (kg) | Arsenic (kg) | Lead(kg) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| to water | to sludge | to water | to sludge | to water | to sludge | to water | to sludge | |
| Hamilton (Woodward Ave.) | 14.45 | 0.169 | 127.00 | 60.14 | 127.00 | 58.14 | 2545.0 | 1468.5 |
| Toronto (Ashbridges Bay) | 56.80 | 27.9 | 43.00 | 73.60 | 258.4 | 32.9 | 859.5 | 1800.9 |
| Ottawa (R.O. Pickard) | 0.005 | 32.64 | 0.02 | 79.93 | 0.03 | 64.24 | 0.051 | 848.5 |
| Sudbury | 16.09 | 0.85 | 24.12 | 34.08 | 232.83 | 3.0 | 51.68 | 55.32 |
What are sewer use bylaws?
Since STPs are not designed to treat metals or persistent organic pollutants, the best environmental solution is to prevent these types of pollutants from entering municipal sewer systems in the first place. The Municipal Act, 2001, gives municipalities the authority to enact sewer use bylaws to regulate what and how much is discharged to their sewer systems. Depending on the municipality, these bylaws may set limits on just a few basic parameters, such as temperature and pH, or they may set out rules for a long list of pollutants and may require sewer users to think about pollution prevention. Once sewer users begin to focus their attention on what is going down their drains, they can in most cases find ways to reduce these pollutants. They may change manufacturing processes, reformulate products, or find ways to capture and reuse wastes. In many cases, industries have found that pollution prevention projects tend to pay back in a short time.
The past role of MOE
Until the mid-1990s, MOE took an active role in promoting municipal sewer use bylaws and encouraged municipalities to adopt more advanced and stronger bylaws. Unfortunately, as detailed below, MOE has almost completely backed off this responsibility since 1998, and has left municipalities to decide for themselves what their sewer use bylaws should look like, how they should be enforced, and, indeed, whether to have sewer use bylaws at all.
The most ambitious MOE plan to control sewer use was the Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA), announced in 1988. According to a 1994 MISA working paper, MOE proposed that specified municipalities would be required to implement and enforce a sewer use control program. MOE also proposed a comprehensive sewer charge and over-strength surcharge system, the development of a mandatory certification program for municipal sewer use inspectors, as well as pollution prevention initiatives. MOE also held a series of training courses for municipal enforcement staff, and completed demonstration projects with five municipalities. But for various reasons – in particular, the economic recession of the early 1990s – the municipal side of MISA was never rolled out.
MOE’s past work on sewer use bylaws
When MISA was first launched in 1988, MOE also published the 1988 model sewer use bylaw (itself an advancement over a 1975 version), which municipalities were free to adopt, revise to their own circumstances, or ignore. Many municipalities decided to enact their own adaptations of the 1988 model bylaw. Ten years later, in 1998, MOE posted an updated version of the bylaw as a proposal on the Registry for a 60-day comment period (PA8E0029). MOE developed this proposal in consultation with a group representing Ontario municipalities of various sizes. The proposed improved bylaw was still optional for municipalities, but featured a simplified modular format, more stringent limits for cadmium, lead and mercury, and new limits for 10 organic substances. It also included a new approach for storm water requirements and the application of pollution prevention to storm sewers. However, MOE has left this proposal languishing on the Registry for the past six years, despite urging from the ECO to move forward.
Stakeholder views on MOE’s model sewer use bylaw
MOE received 34 public comments on its 1998 proposal to update the model sewer use bylaw, and forwarded copies of these comments to the ECO. Nineteen municipalities had commented. Both small and large municipalities were fairly supportive of the proposed direction, and several said they would adopt the bylaw, once finalized. In fact, most municipalities recommended strengthening the bylaw in some way, by adding limits or outright prohibitions on additional parameters.
MOE received less positive comments from three industry associations, which shared concerns about lack of prior consultation, and noted that the limits were too onerous. The environmental groups generally recommended stronger pollution prevention provisions, and one submission noted that the City of Toronto was about to pass a precedent-setting bylaw incorporating pollution prevention planning. (Toronto’s bylaw is now in place.) Environment Canada noted that many other substances could be considered for limits, and attached a lengthy table of discharges to Ontario sewer systems, as reported by industrial sewer users to NPRI in 1996. For example, 21 facilities reported discharging nickel compounds to Ontario sewers, for a total of 9,000 kg, and 26 facilities discharged chromium compounds, for a total of 5,680 kg. Over 500,000 kg of ethylene glycol, the de-icing agent, was discharged to Ontario sewers by 21 facilities.
Judging from public comments, it appears that MOE’s proposed 1998 bylaw took a middle road: it was considered adequate by the municipalities that would be implementing it, too onerous by industry, and too weak by environmental groups. It also appears that MOE staff did review public comments, and worked toward further revisions of the model bylaw. With further public consultation and analysis, MOE could well have crafted a model bylaw that balanced the various interests and concerns. At the very least, MOE could have moved forward on a promised guidance document for municipalities.
MOE’s current position
MOE takes responsibility for ensuring that STPs receiving industrial waste comply with ministry legislation and policies. But in practice, MOE regulates only a few conventional parameters in STP effluent, such as biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids and total phosphorus. Metals and persistant organic pollutants are not regulated in STP effluents, and are rarely monitored. With regard to sewer use, MOE’s current view is that “Waste discharges by industrial facilities to sanitary sewers are the responsibility of the owner/operator of the sewage system.” Municipalities that request advice from MOE on sewer use bylaws are referred to the 1988 model, which is widely accepted to be out of date. MOE has also acknowledged that it is not directly monitoring or applying a policy, currently on the ministry’s books as Procedure F-5-1, that states quite clearly:
- “In selecting a sewage treatment process, consideration must be given to industrial waste inputs to ensure that the sewage treatment process will be compatible with the waste requiring treatment. Pre-treatment of industrial wastes may be necessary. In all cases, sewer use bylaws should be in effect and under enforcement to control the wastes being discharged to the sewer system by municipalities.”
Although Procedure F-5-1 may no longer reflect MOE’s current approach, it shows that in the past the ministry recognized the importance of sewer use bylaws, and the value of pre-treating industrial wastes. MOE states that the series of F-5 Procedures are under internal review, but there is no timeline for completion of this review, nor is there a plan for public consultation.
In effect, MOE has quietly suspended or backed away from its existing policy without articulating a new policy. This does not serve the interests of transparency or environmental protection. Instead, MOE should clarify that it stands by the existing Procedure F-5-1, and affirm that municipal sewer use bylaws remain an important tool for the ministry by posting an update on the six-year-old Registry proposal.
An MOE-led program to strengthen municipal sewer use bylaws would help to meet several commitments the ministry has made related to sewage effluent. For example, in March 2002, Ontario signed a five-year agreement with Environment Canada under the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.
Under COA, Ontario promised to:
- provide municipalities with technical and/or financial help in pollution prevention and control planning in Areas of Concern.
- influence reductions in discharges from MISA sectors, and examine and implement new policies and regulations to manage industrial discharges not currently captured under MISA.
- develop best practices guidance documents to help municipalities identify and reduce sources of harmful pollutants and other contaminants discharged to sewers.
MOE has also promised to implement Justice O’Connor’s recommendation #32 of the Walkerton Inquiry, which states that “the provincial government should support major wastewater plant operators in collaborative studies aimed at identifying practical methods of reducing or removing heavy metals and priority organics (such as endocrine disruptors) that are not removed by conventional treatment.”
So far, MOE has responded to these commitments with very low-key research projects, but no clear goals or public consultation plans and few timelines. For example, a single MOE staff person has been assigned to conduct a literature search of toxic substances discharged by various categories of industrial sewer users. Upon completion of the literature search (possibly by the end of summer 2004) the ministry will decide whether to conduct selective monitoring of final effluents of sewage treatment plants. The ministry is not contemplating monitoring of effluents of sewer users, and plans instead to rely on municipalities to lead such work voluntarily. Any monitoring program would run for at least a year before the ministry planned any policy approaches.
Current state of municipal sewer use bylaws in Ontario
A review of sewer use bylaws of selected Ontario municipalities found considerable room for improvement:
- An estimated 260 Ontario municipalities (out of a total of 446) had sewer use bylaws in the year 2000. (Some municipalities did use the MOE model sewer use bylaw as a guide for drafting their own bylaw.)
- In some municipalities, sewer use bylaws haven’t been updated for a number of years. In some cases, discharge limits have not changed for many years.
- A few municipalities (such as Pembroke) do not have discharge limits in their sewer use bylaws, making their pollution control effectiveness very questionable.
- Only a handful of municipalities, in particular Toronto and Kingston, have stringent limits on a wide range of parameters. (Toronto has mandatory pollution prevention plans for sewer users.)
- There is considerable variability in the limits set on parameters. For example, Toronto and Kingston have a limit for mercury that is 10 times more stringent than the limit set by Hamilton, London or North Bay, while Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury do not have a discharge limit for mercury at all.
Conclusions
The environmental need to control toxic substances discharged to sewers has been thoroughly documented, and the new NPRI data underscore the fact that large quantities of toxic substances continue to flow into sewers and on into Ontario lakes and rivers. There is great scope for updating, strengthening and harmonizing municipal sewer use bylaws in Ontario. MOE is the regulator for Ontario sewage treatment plants and should be acting on its existing policies to promote municipal sewer use bylaws. Instead, although recognizing the need for stronger sewer use bylaws many years ago, MOE has made little progress.
As noted above, MOE has made a number of commitments to work toward improving the effluent quality of sewage treatment plants. Sewer use bylaws will need to be part of the solution, and MOE needs to demonstrate leadership to ensure that this tool is employed to the best environmental advantage. (For mininstry comments, see page 198.)
| Recommendation 3:
The ECO recommends that MOE act on its existing policies to ensure that municipal sewer use bylaws are in effect, reflect current environmental standards, and are enforced across Ontario. |
| This is an article from the 2003/04 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2004. "Sewer Use Bylaws in Ontario." Choosing our Legacy, ECO Annual Report, 2003-04. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 35-41.
