sou · H8B33 · 2020-01-17 00:00:00 — The Inquiry has therefore sought to clarify the underlying risk analysis which, in accordance with the intentions behind the terms of reference, can justify a ban on spreading sewage sludge. Requirements for the recovery of phosphorus and any other plant nutrients also need to be related to ways of actually returning the nutrients to the ecocycle. The latter lies outside the specified tasks for the Inquiry, but is crucial to the drafting of a new regulatory framework and to assess the societal benefit the proposals can yield. The motives also need to be developed in order to lend legitimacy to the proposals, with associated costs and other consequences for affected businesses and other stakeholders. An underlying problem is the possible difficulties for sludge management that may develop independently of future regulation. To date it has been relatively easy for treatment plants to dispose of their sludge at foreseeable cost for spreading on arable land, landfill capping, topsoil production or other purposes. Several of these options are, however, affected by markets and other changes. The interest of the operators responsible for water and wastewater in ridding them- selves of sewage sludge in the future is therefore expected to become even more pronounced. This may lead to substantial changes in the form of reduced sludge spreading, even in the absence of new regulation. Proposals for a ban on sludge spreading Based on different scenarios concerning a phase-out of future sludge spreading, the Inquiry has formulated two options for future regula- tion. Both options are aimed at producers of sludge, irrespective of size of the wastewater plant and status of the responsible operator, as well as at the end-users of sludge. The options are to fulfil the requirements set out in the terms of reference for a ban on sludge spreading (with possible exceptions), be compatible with EU law, respect the precautionary principle and at the same time set require- ments for phosphorus recovery. The regulatory framework relating to the spreading of sludge in agriculture is an area that has been harmonised at a minimum level in the EU. EU law also sets the frame- work for enhanced regulation in other respects. The fundamental principle of the free movement of goods in the single market must be followed. If wishes to introduce a national ban on the spreading of sewage sludge, it must be demonstrated that the measure is necessary and that the use of sewage sludge, following a risk assessment, poses a threat to human health or the environment and that the provisions are compatible with the principle of proportional- ity. Under the precautionary principle, measures can also be taken before adverse effects of sludge spreading occur, but only become relevant if a potential risk arises. sises that the principle does not in any event justify decisions taken arbitrarily. Application of the precautionary principle may, however, differ depending on the assessment of how risks can be managed proportionately. Citing the precautionary principle does not give entitlement to deviate from general principles of risk management, which include the principle of proportionality. The Inquiry’s proposed ban option (1) relates to a complete end to sludge spreading with very few exceptions, which is most clearly in line with the terms of reference. This has, however, been deemed to be a less realistic alternative, given the requirements for evidence regarding effects on health and the environment and compatibility with the EU regulatory framework.1 It is deemed that this option would further steer towards the development of large-scale technical solutions, principally the incineration of sewage sludge with sub- sequent phosphorus extraction from the ashes. If incineration is the choice, incitaments for biogas production may bee reduced. Another ban option (2) has been formulated. This also takes account of other factors, for example the possibility of applying the ecocycle principle to phosphorus, a number of other plant nutrients and the carbon content of the sludge. Possible risks to health and the environment are managed in accordance with the precautionary principle through recurrent checkpoints, with broadened and tightened requirements for quality and sanitisation when spreading sludge on productive farmland. In both options (1) and (2) spreading is per- mitted when exemptions are granted for own waste disposal and for exceptional reasons. The checkpoints take place at five-yearly intervals during the im- plementation phase of 12–15 years for a new regulatory framework. If option (2) is chosen, they will also be carried out continuously. is given responsibility for implementing these checkpoints in cooperation with other authorities concerned. This work principally comprises assessments of risks in spreading sludge and necessary adjustments of the limit values and rules on waste management in regulations from the . 1In recent years, the Court of of Union has on several occasions judged public health and environmental grounds not to be sufficient to obstruct free movement of goods. In several judgments, the Court has found that national measures were dispro- portionate to the underlying purposes, or that evidence that the purported risks existed was lacking. ments may contribute in the longer term to possibilities for spread- ing sludge in agriculture gradually being phased out. Taken together, this may mean a development that aligns closely with the conse- quences of option (1). Regulation through government agency regula- tions necessitates amendment of the Environmental Code with regard to authorisations and provisions on sanctions. As well as sewage sludge, the Inquiry’s proposals by definition cover some related wastewater fractions with a composition that makes it difficult to differentiate them for the purposes of regula- tion. This applies to other waste fractions that arise in the treatment of wastewater as well as collected lavatory water, urine and faeces. Both options (1) and (2) involve bans on the spreading of sewage sludge outside productive farmland, i.e. for the equivalent of two- thirds of present-day sludge spreading. Spreading on other types of land than productive farmland does not signify sufficient return of phosphorus to the ecocycle, nor does it provide such controlled conditions in other respects that spreading should be permitted. Lack of a comprehensive regulatory framework – ban on spreading sludge can be circumvented A ban on the spreading of sewage sludge can be regarded as a way of removing potentially harmful substances from the ecocycle. This applies to heavy metals, organic pollutants, pharmaceutical residues and microplastics, all of which have featured in the debate on sludge management. The ban cannot, however, in itself prevent treated sludge, other waste fractions and biofertilisers with similar contents but under different designations being spread, for example in agri- culture. This also applies to the use of treated wastewater for irriga- tion purposes. A supplementary regulatory framework is required for this, which has not been included as a task in the Inquiry’s terms of reference. A broader approach is crucial to enable comprehensive and consistent regulation of the risks that may arise and, if they do arise, need to be managed. The Inquiry therefore proposes that the should be instructed, after consulting affected authorities, to propose the necessary develop- ment of a regulatory framework on the use of other organic fertilisers. Proposals on requirements for phosphorus recovery Under its terms of reference, the Inquiry is to formulate proposals for requirements to be met in the extraction of phosphorus from sewage sludge. The Inquiry proposes such a requirement for recovery of phosphorus that covers public wastewater treatment plants with licensed connection of wastewater that has a degree of pollution corresponding to more than 20,000 p.e. (population equivalent). The requirement is aimed at operators responsible for treatment plants and relates to at least 60 percent of the phosphorus contained in the sewage sludge. The phosphorus has to be recovered in a form that makes return to productive farmland possible. The requirement enters into force successively, with larger treatment plants (more than 50,000 pe) having to apply the new rules after 12 years at the latest. In the case of smaller treatment plants, the requirement comes into force 15 years after the introduction of a new regulatory frame- work. The requirement for recovery is equivalent to nearly 50 per- cent, or around 2,700 , of the total amount of Phosphorus annually set aside in Swedish production of sewage sludge at municipal wastewater treatment plants. The requirement level provides the responsible operators with some flexibility so that technology steer- ing does not become excessive. ambitious recycling require- ments will, with present-day technology, probably lead to highly centralised mono-incineration of the sludge with subsequent recovery of phosphorus from the ash. The Inquiry considers it necessary to take a broader approach to returning nutrients to the ecocycle, and deems that targets could be introduced into the system of environmental objectives for the recovery of plant nutrients from public wastewater streams. Such interim targets have previously been accommodated in the system of environmental objectives. Spreading ban and requirements for recovery – uncertain benefit with high costs to households and businesses The combined costs for the water and wastewater industry and individual households of managing sewage sludge and phosphorus recovery will according to the Inquiry’s assessments greatly exceed the benefits that recovered phosphorus represent for them and society as a whole. The market value of one kilogram of phosphorus, nearly per kilogram, has to be set against the substantially higher costs represented by actual recovery. The combined value on the market for phosphorus recovered according to the Inquiry’s proposals is equivalent to an annual sum of nearly million. The rise in costs for the water and wastewater industry of a techno- logical chain with mono-incineration and recovery of phosphorus from ash is estimated to be equivalent to at least –150 million annually and, according to the industry’s own estimates, substan- tially more. The estimated costs are uncertain; at present they are based on individual data from suppliers and, in a real future with uncertain alternative options, may become significantly higher. The Swedish Water and foresees a trend towards probable oligopoly-like conditions for mono-incineration, phos- phorus recovery and pyrolysis would also drive a rise in costs. The necessarily long implementation period (12–15 years) before the requirements for a ban on spreading and for phosphorus recovery enter into force makes it difficult for the operators responsible for water and wastewater treatment to undertake firm planning based on present-day knowledge. It is furthermore important to note the major differences that may exist in cost levels as a result of geo- graphical and other factors for sludge management at specific treat- ment plants. New technology options may be available in the future, but are not yet evidently under development and lack the guarantees of functionality and non-toxicity that have been required, for example with regard to spreading pyrolysed sludge. The possible benefits that arise further necessitate phosphorus being returned to the ecocycle, which ultimately is a matter for operators in agriculture and the market to address. At present only sludge spreading on arable land clearly returns both phosphorus and other nutrients and carbon to the ecocycle. The environmental analyses that the Inquiry has commis- sioned for various management options do show that incineration and other thermal treatment of the sewage sludge may bring environ- mental and climate-related benefits. At the same time, the analyses have increased understanding of how sludge can be managed and spread with greater safety and less such impact. The annual capital costs for Swedish water and wastewater treat- ment systems are already high, around billion in 2018, and further increases are anticipated as a result of further environmental requirements, reinvestments and investment needs for the treatment plant structure of tomorrow. If the water and wastewater industry is to organise and establish the necessary infrastructure for mono- incineration on its own, the investment costs are estimated to be at an equivalent level. This applies to a situation in which the value of sewage sludge as a source of phosphorus may be undermined by possibilities for utilising other external phosphorus resources. Supplies may increase appreciably in if future recovery of phosphorus from mining waste becomes commercially feasible and achieves a full breakthrough. It is estimated that annual production of phosphorus could then surpass the national requirement level and be equivalent to 10–20 times the quantity made possible by the recycling of sewage sludge in . Proposals for expert support and a broadened perspective Irrespective of which option for a ban on spreading and requirements for recovery are chosen, some further measures are assessed as being of significant value. The Inquiry proposes supplementary initiatives through a remit to the to coordinate national upstream efforts and ensure a central expertise and support function for wastewater issues and ecocycle resources. This work should focus on sewage sludge during an initial period. A number of other central government agencies and the county administrative boards participate in this work. Funding is made possible by new revenue from the duty on waste incineration from . The Inquiry has also examined the for establishing targeted forms of financial support for operators responsible for water and wastewater services who, at an early stage, plan and implement changes with new technology for sludge management and phos- phorus recovery. The Inquiry notes, however, that there is already a good basis for providing support to development projects and pilot plants under existing R&D and innovation systems. Stricter quality requirements for sludge can improve safety The precautionary principle is a basis for the long-term protection of health and the environment against harmful substances and effects that may arise or be discovered when spreading sewage sludge, but application differs depending on the view taken of how risks can be managed proportionately. The risks also need to be weighed against other societal objectives. The Inquiry notes that current research on the spreading of sewage sludge has not yet shown adverse effects on health and the environment caused by sludge spreading with the quality requirements applied for use in Swedish agriculture. Heavily sludge-fertilised experimental plots have been monitored for several decades. Empirical data is largely lacking for other types of spreading on land, as is a regulatory frame- work. Spreading in agriculture is linked to management and quality rules, which should be continuously revised. Such a regulatory framework should be adapted to the relevant knowledge and risk assessment that can be performed. The Inquiry’s assessment is that the risk analysis that is available today does not in itself provide the basis for a complete ban on spreading sewage sludge, but does form the basis for modernising how limit values are set and for a regula- tory framework concerning sludge sanitisation. ban that is introduced may therefore need to be substantiated in other ways. This is also a characteristic of the restrictions on spreading that are being implemented in some other European countries, such as and . In the absence of an updated regulatory framework, limit values, sanitisation and other quality requirements in use on agricultural land have been developed within the voluntary Revaq system. A new regulatory framework needs, however, to be reviewed in the light of the expertise available to various central government agencies. As stated previously, it is proposed that the should be responsible for implementation of the regularly recurring checkpoints. This agency submitted proposals in 2013 for enhanced quality limits and requirements for sanitisation which related to using wastewater fractions, biofertilisers and compost on arable land, land and other land. Several stakeholders point out that, together with application in Revaq, this can represent a suitable to carry on . This provides a good basis to update and develop the regulatory framework and ensure quality in the sewage sludge that, on a transitional or more long-term basis, is allowed to be spread. At present there are no specific rules on spreading sludge on land other than farmland. It is therefore crucial to draw up transitional rules governing spreading on all land as soon as possible. The combined motives are concern for health and the environment and an endeavour to support the country’s municipalities in the forthcoming work on making the switch. Certain resources will be required to back up central govern- ment efforts. How should the sludge be managed in the future? The Inquiry’s terms of reference are based on the intention to prohibit sludge spreading and set requirements for the recovery of phosphorus in a suitable way. The Inquiry has therefore presented such proposals. However, future changes in sludge management contain a number of components that need to be weighed into an overall assessment. As well as financial aspects of different methods and options for a ban, this applies to sharing costs and benefits between the different parties involved. It also relates to the pro- spects for a shift and the value to society of a change. Benefits can be demonstrated by recovered phosphorus at a certain market value being able to replace new raw material in the ecocycle. It is also desirable that this should result in reduced environmental, health and climate-based costs. However, such reduced costs are difficult to demonstrate. What is perhaps the strongest driver – an endeavour to bring about a non-toxic crop-growing environment – has set the tone in the debate on sludge spreading. Evidence for a total ban being necessary is lacking, however, research having failed to prove that crops grown with sludge have health impacts or have an adverse impact on ecosystems in agriculture. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that sludge fertiliser application supplies plant nutrients and humus that agriculture demands. The underlying set of motives for regulation therefore becomes important, particularly as the con- sequences of different options can be far-reaching for several parties involved, not least for households and businesses. 1.1Förslag till lag om ändring i Härigenom föreskrivs i fråga om dels att 9 kap. 5 § och 29 kap. 9 § ska ha följande lydelse, dels att det ska införas en ny paragraf, 15 kap. 39 a §, av följande lydelse. För att skydda människors hälsa eller miljön får regeringen, om det framstår som mer ändamålsenligt än beslut i enskilda fall, också i andra fall än som avses i 4 § i fråga om miljöfarlig verksamhet med- dela föreskrifter om förbud, skyddsåtgärder, begränsningar och andra försiktighetsmått. Sådana föreskrifter får också meddelas för att uppfylla internationella åtaganden. Om det finns sär- skilda skäl, får regeringen bemyndiga en myndighet att meddela så- dana föreskrifter. Om det behövs, får regeringen meddela föreskrifter om sådana försiktighetsmått som går utöver vad som följer av medlem- skap i Europeiska unionen eller andra internationella åtaganden. En myndighet som regeringen bestämmer får dock meddela före- skrifter om förbud, skyddsåtgär- der, begränsningar och andra för- siktighetsmått som går utöver vad som följer av medlemskap i unionen eller andra internationella åtaganden då det gäller avloppsslam och andra av- loppsfraktioner som uppstår vid rening av avloppsvatten samt upp- samlat klosettvatten, urin och fekalier. Regeringen eller den myndig- het som regeringen bestämmer får meddela föreskrifter om återvin- ning av fosfor ur avloppsslam. Till böter döms den som med uppsåt eller av oaktsamhet 1.bryter mot bestämmelsen i artikel 6.3 i förordning (EG) nr 338/97 om skyldighet att i en ansökan lämna uppgift om tidigare beslut om avslag, 2. bryter mot en föreskrift eller ett beslut i ett enskilt fall om tomgångskörning eller gatu- musik som regeringen eller, efter regeringens bemyndigande, en myndighet har meddelat med stöd av 9 kap. 12 §, 3. bryter mot en föreskrift om skötsel av jordbruksmark som regeringen eller, efter regeringens 2.bryter mot en föreskrift om förbud, skyddsåtgärder, begräns- ningar och andra försiktighetsmått då det gäller avloppsslam och andra avloppfraktioner som uppstår vid rening av avloppsvatten samt up- psamlat klosettvatten, urin och fe- kalier som en myndighet, efter re- geringens bemyndigande, har med- delat med stöd av 9 kap. 5 §, 3.bryter mot en föreskrift eller ett beslut i ett enskilt fall om tomgångskörning eller gatu- musik som regeringen eller, efter regeringens bemyndigande, en myndighet har meddelat med stöd av 9 kap. 12 §, 4.bryter mot en föreskrift om skötsel av jordbruksmark som regeringen eller, efter regeringens bemyndigande, en myndighet har meddelat med stöd av 12 kap. 8 §, 4.bryter mot en föreskrift om hantering av gödsel som re- geringen eller, efter regeringens bemyndigande, en myndighet har meddelat med stöd av 12 kap. 10 §, 5.vid en sådan odling av ge- netiskt modifierade organismer som omfattas av ett tillstånd en- ligt 13 kap. 12 § bryter mot en föreskrift om försiktighetsmått som regeringen eller, efter rege- ringens bemyndigande, en myn- dighet har meddelat med stöd av 13 kap. 11 §, 6.bryter mot en föreskrift om märkning av genetiskt modi- fierade organismer som reger- ingen eller, efter regeringens be- myndigande, en myndighet har meddelat med stöd av 13 kap. 18 §, 7.bryter mot en bestämmelse om spårbarhet eller märkning enligt artikel 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 5.1eller 5.2 i Europaparlamen- tets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1830/2003 av den 22 septem- ber 2003 om spårbarhet och märk- ning av genetiskt modifierade organismer och spårbarhet av livs- medel och foderprodukter som är framställda av genetiskt modi- fierade organismer och om änd- ring av direktiv /18/EG, 8.bryter mot en bestämmelse om information, identifiering, bemyndigande, en myndighet har meddelat med stöd av 12 kap. 8 §, 5. bryter mot en föreskrift om hantering av gödsel som re- geringen eller, efter regeringens bemyndigande, en myndighet har meddelat med stöd av 12 kap. 6. vid en sådan odling av ge- netiskt modifierade organismer som omfattas av ett tillstånd en- ligt 13 kap. 12 § bryter mot en föreskrift om försiktighetsmått som regeringen eller, efter reger- ingens bemyndigande, en myn- dighet har meddelat med stöd av 13 kap. 11 §, 7. bryter mot en föreskrift om märkning av genetiskt modi- fierade organismer som reger- ingen eller, efter regeringens be- myndigande, en myndighet har meddelat med stöd av 13 kap. 8. bryter mot en bestämmelse om spårbarhet eller märkning enligt artikel 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 5.1eller 5.2 i Europaparlamen- tets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 1830/2003 av om spårbarhet och märkning av genetiskt modifierade orga- nismer och spårbarhet av livs- medel och foderprodukter som är framställda av genetiskt modi- fierade organismer och om änd- ring av direktiv /18/EG, 9. bryter mot en bestämmelse om information, identifiering, dokumentation eller anmälan en- ligt artikel 6, 12 eller 13 i Euro- paparlamentets och rådets för- ordning (EG) nr 1946/2003 av om gränsöver- skridande förflyttning av gene- tiskt modifierade organismer,