|
Home About Us History BC Groups Rebut MoE Claims on Sludge Spreading
|
![]() |
|
|
|
BC Groups Rebut MoE Claims on Sludge Spreading |
|
|
|
November 13, 2007
Hon. Barry Penner
Minister of the Environment
Legislative Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Dear Minister Penner,
Thank you for directing a reply to the concerns of citizens, environmental and labour groups over the Soil Amendment Code of Practice. We have received
the letter from Assistant Deputy Minister, Lynn Bailey of October 23, 2007./
A number of statements in the letter bear further discussion, however.
“The practice of using industrial residuals to enhance soil quality is neither new nor unique to British Columbia. All jurisdictions in North America and Europe have rules or regulations governing how agricultural, industrial, and municipal residuals may be used on land.”
This statement could be taken to mean that all jurisdictions allow the practice with certain regulatory limits. In fact, a number of jurisdictions use rules and regulations to prohibit the use of sludge on agricultural land. ...
A preliminary review reveals that Sweden has eliminated the use of
sludge on agricultural fields after finding elevated levels of
brominated fire retardants. The Netherlands does not spread sludge on
agricultural land, and in Quebec, the government has proposed
regulation amendments to ban compost containing municipal sludge or
treatment wastewater sludge from being spread on pasture land or land
where crops are being grown for human consumption. It would appear
that other jurisdictions are employing rules and regulations to move
away from the practice.
The letter proceeds to detail a list of features of the new Code that
are alleged to be sufficient to ‘protect human health and the
environment’.
1) A limited list of materials that can be applied: Unlike some
jurisdictions, the Code only allows the use of specific materials for
which we have data and a scientific track record of beneficial
application to land. Only a select number of materials fit this
criterion.
This limited list represents precisely the materials that we are
objecting to. Pulp mill sludge and sewage sludge contain a wide variety
of toxic chemicals. This point has not been responded to adequately.
2) Maximum contaminant levels: Consistent with the Organic Matter
Recycling Regulation (OMRR), the Code uses the same quality parameters
and maximum levels as for Class A municipal biosolids which are
harmonized with the federal Fertilizers Act.
Pulp mill sludge and sewage sludge contain toxins that are considerably
more acutely and persistently toxic than anything contemplated under
the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. The OMRR was not designed
with industrial chemical waste in mind and is a wholly inadequate
instrument to reference in this case. These parameters comprise a
small handful of heavy metals and do not address organic pollutants or
pathogens at all.
Further, it is not true that the Code uses the same maximum levels as
for Class A biosolids. A comparison shows clearly that the code is
directly in line with Class B biosolids. A comparison chart is below
for your review. It should be noted that the OMRR specifies that Class
B biosolids must not be land applied in a watershed used as a permitted
water supply under the Drinking Water Protection Regulation.
Inconceivably, the same material can be applied in a watershed under
the new BC Code.
 Comparison of Guidelines
3) Land Application Plans: The Code prohibits application of waste
in quantities that would exceed the nutrient needs of the plants at the
application site. A qualified professional must prepare a land
application plan. In the land application plan, the qualified
professional must predict the expected concentration of constituents in
the soil, and calculate the amount of soil amendment that can be
applied to provide for the plant or crop needs.
Exceeding the nutrient needs of plants is a very small part of the
concern and pertains, again, only to a few heavy metals. Metals such
as mercury, lead and substances such as dioxins, furans, phenols,
benzenes have absolutely no nutrient value to plants and should not be
classified as ‘amendment’ in any amount.
4) Steps to ensure soil is enhanced: The discharger is responsible
for ensuring that the application of a soil amendment to land has a
positive effect on the soil. They must analyse the soil and the soil
amendment, and then have a qualified professional calculate the
predicted concentration of contaminants in the soil after land
application. The calculated level in the soil must stay below
contaminated site criteria levels.
Accountability for ensuring that land applications have a ‘positive
effect on the soil’ are not to be found anywhere in the Code. There is
no requirement for any testing to prove a positive effect – only that
the soil remains below certain levels for a limited set of parameters.
Again, these parameters for testing and prediction of contamination are
completely inadequate and do not address many of the major risks
involved in the application of industrial and municipal sludge to lands
growing food crops, pasture lands and wildlife supporting lands. Their
satisfaction does not prove a positive effect on the soil or on the
waterways that will inevitably bear the leachate from the soil.
5) Cannot cause pollution: The final level of protection for any
discharge of waste under a code of practice is the absolute prohibition
against causing pollution as found in Section 6(4) of the Environmental
Management Act. This section prevents a person from introducing waste
into the environment in a manner or quantity that would cause
pollution. If pollution is being caused, a director may issue an order
to address the environmental concerns.
The Environmental Management Act defines pollution as:
the presence in the environment of substances or contaminants that
substantially alter or impair the usefulness of the environment.
The lack of data on chemical composition of any specific sludge, and
the known contaminants it could potentially contain, make it impossible
to guarantee that land applications of sludge could occur without
pollution. The absence of testing parameters for a wide range of
toxins does not make these toxins ‘safe’.
We respectfully request:
- a rationale for excluding organic pollutants and pathogens from testing parameters;
- an explanation for allowing Class B levels of contaminants to be landspread in a watershed, counter to OMRR regulations;
- Verifiable, scientific analysis of the composition of
representative samples of sewage sludge and pulp mill sludge – along
with interpretations that demonstrate the rationale for allowing the
practice. It has been asserted in point 1 above that data and a
scientific track record of beneficial application to land for this
material exists;
- Environmental and wildlife assessment studies completed and
detailed baselines set prior to any land applications under the Code to
evaluate the potential impact on flora and fauna that depend on the
land and waterways for their sustenance; and a requirement for frequent
and transparent monitoring to ensure swift action is possible in
response to deviations from baselines.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jay Ritchlin David Suzuki Foundation Stuart Blundell Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada
Lisa Matthaus Sierra Club of Canada Andrea Reimer Wilderness Committee
Christianne Wilhelmson Georgia Strait Alliance Pat Reichert Island Natural Growers
Tzeporah Berman Forest Ethics Mae Burrows Labour Environment Alliance Society
Delores Broten Reach for Unbleached Robert Wiltzen Crofton Airshed Citizens Group
Samuel Godfrey Island Organic Producers Association
cc. Lynn Bailey, Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Division Shane Simpson, NDP Environment critic |
|
|
|
![]() |
|