Review of the regulatory framework for sewage biosolids
For over 25 years, municipal sewage biosolids have been applied to farmland for the purpose of enhancing crop growth. Farmers have also benefited because the use of biosolids reduces their reliance on more costly fertilizers, while the practice offers municipalities a convenient and cost effective means of disposing of this end product of the sewage treatment process. However, ongoing concerns about the public health and environmental effects of biosolids application have not been quelled as yet; in addition, operational challenges, such as the increasing shortage of suitable farmland, have arisen.
Contents |
Background
Municipal sewage treatment plants (STPs) treat sewage from residences and other sources (including industry under sewer use by-laws) to produce a liquid effluent and sewage sludge. Comprised mostly of water, sewage sludge also contains organic material and microbes, such as protozoa, rotifers, bacteria, viruses and parasites. Sewage sludge is treated to reduce its odour and the concentration of pathogens, including E. coli and other bacteria, viruses and parasites that could cause human and wildlife diseases. The resulting product, called sewage biosolids, contains nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and micro-nutrients, and can be used as a fertilizer and soil conditioner. According to studies reviewed by MOE, it is unlikely that stabilized sewage biosolids applied according to the guidelines may still contain sufficient concentrations of pathogens to cause disease and produce unacceptable odours.
Since 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recognized two classes of pathogenicity, called A and B, in sewage biosolids. Under the U.S. EPA regulation – Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 503, Subpart D – Class A biosolids must not have detectable levels of fecal coliforms and some other pathogens. Class A biosolids can be applied to all types of land, including lawns and home gardens. Class B biosolids are of lower quality since they have detectable levels of pathogens. They can be applied to farmland, but not to lawns and home gardens due to safety concerns.
In 2004, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) released the draft “Guide for the Beneficial Use of Non-Agricultural Source Materials on Agricultural Land” replacing the 1996 guidelines for the application of biosolids. Both guidelines define quality criteria and land application requirements for sewage biosolids, which are similar to the U.S. EPA’s Class B requirements, and are intended to reduce the risks related to pathogens and odour.
Disposal of sewage biosolids
Currently, large quantities of Ontario’s sewage biosolids are deposited in landfill sites; however, odour complaints and declining landfill capacity are making this disposal option less attractive. For example, Toronto and Windsor shipped sewage biosolids to Michigan, due in part to a lack of suitable farmland and landfill space in Ontario. In the summer of 2006, the State of Michigan ordered the shipments stopped due to odour complaints. Several municipal STPs incinerate sewage sludge, including the Duffin Creek Water Purification Control Plant (York Durham Region), City of London, and Highland Creek WPCP (City of Toronto).
Environmental Protection Act and Nutrient Management Act
Under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) and Regulation 347 (RRO 1990), sewage biosolids are regulated as a waste and approvals for their disposal are obtained from MOE. Haulers of sewage biosolids are required to obtain a waste management system Certificate of Approval (C of A), and landfill site owners are required to obtain a C of A for their waste disposal sites. If sewage biosolids are to be spread on farmland as a nutrient, a five-year Organic Soil Conditioning Site C of A must be obtained from MOE for the site, and approval is required from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) under the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) and O. Reg. 267/03 if the farm has been phased into the requirements of the regulation. If sewage sludge is to be incinerated or used as a fuel source to generate electricity, a C of A for air emissions is required, and approval under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) may also be required. (For additional information about EAA requirements, refer to notice RA06E0008 on the Registry.)
Summary of Issues
In June 2006, applicants requested a review of the existing sewage biosolids regulatory framework and the need for a new regulation “in view of better technologies available to tackle environmental hazards associated with the biosolids application to agricultural land.” According to the applicants, Lystek International Inc. (Waterloo, ON) has developed a treatment technology that will produce stable “pathogen-free” sewage biosolids that are consistent with the U.S. EPA’s Class A biosolids requirements, meet land application requirements, and can be stored for a year without re-growth of pathogens.
According to the applicants, the technology has been successfully tested at the Guelph municipal STP and “represents a proactive step towards meeting the future challenges of beneficial biosolids reuse in an environmentally responsible manner.” The applicants have requested that the regulatory framework for sewage biosolids management be enhanced to recognize the benefits that improvements in the quality of sewage biosolids and stabilization can provide to the environment and to society.
The ECO forwarded the application to MOE and OMAFRA.
Ministry Response
MOE denied the applicants’ request for review, explaining that, since the decision to pass O. Reg. 267/03 was made within the last five years, MOE was not required to accept this application. MOE also explained that there was no requirement to accept the application since “the potential for harm to the environment is low based on the current regulatory standards associated with the management of this material.” MOE noted that it has been approving biosolids land applications for 25 years without any documented health or environmental impacts when standards are followed.
MOE advised the applicants that it was already reviewing the regulatory framework for sewage biosolids and that future revisions would “retain the necessary environmental controls for the management of this material.” MOE suggested that the applicants monitor the Registry for future proposals and provide comments at such time as proposals are posted.
OMAFRA also denied the applicants’ request for review, stating that it agreed with MOE. Neither ministry gave any indication that it plans to introduce a sewage biosolids classification system.
ECO Comment
MOE and OMAFRA were not justified in denying this application for two reasons. First, none of their decisions in the last five years regarding sewage biosolids included consideration of a “pathogen-free” sewage biosolids product. In addition, current proposals – the review of the regulatory framework for land application of sewage biosolids and the 2004 draft Guide – don’t include consideration of or accommodation for a Class A sewage biosolids product.
Second, there is social, economic and scientific evidence that it was in the public’s interest to undertake this review. Despite MOE’s and OMAFRA’s assertion that sewage biosolids are safe, many members of the public, as well as some farmers and municipalities, are not convinced. In fact, some U.S. jurisdictions have attempted to ban the practice and have had the ban overturned by the courts. In Ontario, municipalities have lost access to farmland application sites and farmers to an inexpensive source of nutrients because of quality/odour concerns. The issue of land application of sewage biosolids has divided communities, pitting neighbour against neighbour. Increasingly, municipalities have only two disposal options: landfilling or incineration, both of which have met with resistance from the public. The ECO believes that MOE and OMAFRA should have agreed to develop quality standards that are similar to the U.S. EPA’s Class A standards and would result in a stable “pathogen-free” product. Such standards would improve confidence in the product among farmers and their neighbours and, thus, provide greater access to much needed farmland. This application illustrates how the development and implementation of innovative waste management technology can be hampered when government fails to set a clear direction and update requirements in a timely manner.
In June 2007, MOE posted a proposed policy statement that would require municipalities to prepare waste management plans including plans for the management of sewage biosolids. The proposed policy statement encourages municipalities to give preference to reduction, recycling and reuse approaches for waste management over thermal treatment and landfilling with or without energy recovery approaches. The ECO plans to review the decision on this policy statement and progress on its implementation. For additional information about this proposal refer to Registry number 010-0420.
In September 2007, MOE advised the ECO that it is considering the U.S. EPA’s pathogen standards as part of its review.
| Recommendation 9:
The ECO recommends that MOE and OMAFRA develop quality standards that support land application of stable "pathogen-free" sewage biosolids. |
| This is an article from the 2006/07 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2007. "Review of the Regulatory Framework for Sewage Biosolids." Reconciling our Priorities, ECO Annual Report, 2006-07. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 144-148.
