Sludge disposal: ethics and expediency

Abstract

The United State Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) attempted to set health-based regulations for sludge disposal and used worst-case scenarios to estimate the detrimental health effect. In the absence of adequate information, this exercise led them to err so much on the conservative side that the regulations became unrealistic and would not have been accepted by the public. So the US EPA decided to do what was expedient – to establish regulations that allow most wastewater treatment plants to dispose of their sludges, knowing that these regulations are better than none at all. Such regulatory decision-making has ethical ramifications because it involves distributing costs and benefits between affected citizens. The principle of expediency as articulated by Earle Phelps calls for a regulator to optimize the benefits of health protection while minimizing costs within the constraints of technical feasibility. Phelps' expediency principle, proposed over fifty years ago, is still a useful application of ethics using scientific knowledge to set dynamic and yet enforceable environmental regulations. In the case of sludge disposal, the US EPA made an ethical decision based on the principle of expediency, weighing the moral good of human health protection versus the moral harm of taking wealth by requiring costly wastewater sludge treatment and disposal.