Rules are urgently needed on sewage-sludge disposal

The following is an editorial that appeared in the August 2, 2002 Hamilton Spectator

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rules are urgently needed on sewage-sludge disposal

Is it safe to spread sewage sludge on farmland? The question is being asked with increasing frequency in light of new concerns expressed by experts in Canada and the United States. There isn't a smoking gun, in terms of documented evidence that directly links the widespread practice to health problems or environmental damage. Even so, reputable scientists are raising warning flags at a rate that's generating concern and unease. They worry that sludge contains metals, toxic chemicals, viruses, bacteria and other disease-causing agents to which people and animals may be exposed.

Although sludge is treated and tested, the adequacy of the checks and balances is another issue. Some experts are calling for a moratorium on spreading sludge from human and industrial wastes until the long-accepted practice is proven safe.

A moratorium, in Ontario at least, would be a major challenge to implement, given the massive quantities of sludge dispersed now. Municipalities rely on the practice as an alternative to landfilling or burning waste. Farmers use sludge as a convenient and efficient fertilizer. If cities like Hamilton or Toronto were to lose the agricultural market for sludge, where would it go? Neither landfilling nor incineration is attractive. Some experts believe sludge can work as composting, or as bedding for vegetation atop old mine tailings, but the feasibility is unknown.

There isn't any doubt that the senior levels of government must do more to address mounting uncertainty about the potential risks of sludge. Good information is vital in developing fail-safe regulations to protect people who live near fields spread with sludge, and the workers who apply it.

The evidence suggests that governments aren't moving quickly enough to assure that standards of testing and enforcement are where they should be. The lack of national standards for sludge is one example of what many observers see as a loose policy framework that leaves too much to chance.

Concern about the potential dangers of sludge in rural communities soared after the water contamination tragedy in Walkerton and Justice Dennis O'Connor's conclusion that better controls are needed on farm pollution from all sources.

Hamilton physician Coleman Rotstein, who heads the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society, supports a moratorium on sludge-spreading until we are "absolutely sure that's it safe."

In the United States, a panel of scientists recently said that country's sludge-disposal policies are based on outdated science.

For its part, the Ontario government promised in April to accelerate a review of its policies on the handling of sludge, including a look at the American findings. The Nutrient Management Act, designed in part to establish province-wide standards on sludge dispersal, was approved in June. But a timetable hasn't been set to complete the all-important regulations.

People who live next to sludge-treated fields aren't willing to run the risk of becoming sick as the result of a practice which they perceive as inherently unhealthy. We don't blame them.

If sludge-spreading is to continue, the provincial and federal governments must err on the side of safety.

-- Gord McNulty