Home arrow About Us arrow History arrow BC Groups Rebut MoE Claims on Sludge Spreading
Main Menu
Home
Take Action!
Search
About Us
In the News
The Crofton Mill
Air Pollutants
Contact Us
Links
Press Centre
Documents and Reports
CACG Newsletter
Letters
Toxic Legacy of Federal Neglect
Pulp Pollution Primer
RWDI Peer Review
Senes Peer Review
Regulations?
Jacques Whitford Study
Air Quality Reports
Paprican Study on Dioxins
Interbeing and Paper
Risk Assessment
Transcripts
Best Technology for P&P:EC
BC Groups Rebut MoE Claims on Sludge Spreading PDF Print E-mail
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.

Guidelines comparisons
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:
  1. a rationale for excluding organic pollutants and pathogens from testing parameters;
  2. an explanation for allowing Class B levels of contaminants to be landspread in a watershed, counter to OMRR regulations;
  3. 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;
  4. 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
< Prev   Next >

This site donated by Charles Buchwald