A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 44-96-195 SO AS TO PROHIBIT LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE AND THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF COMPOST AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS CONTAINING SLUDGE AND SEPTAGE.
H5310 amends South Carolina’s solid waste laws by adding a new section that broadly prohibits the land application of sludge generated by municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plants. It also bars the sale or distribution in South Carolina of compost, fertilizer, soil amendments, topsoil replacements, mulch, or similar agricultural products if they were made with, or contain, that sludge or septage. In practical terms, the bill would prevent these materials from being spread on land or marketed for agricultural use anywhere in the state, subject to limited exceptions.
The bill creates several carve-outs. It allows the prohibited materials to be disposed of in a solid waste landfill, and it preserves the use and sale of compost or other agricultural products made from certain non-sewage organic residuals such as food waste, crops, vegetative material, brewing and distilling byproducts, and certain seafood or agricultural inputs, so long as they are not mixed with sludge, septage, sewage, or sanitary wastewater. It also exempts materials derived from sludge produced during precipitated calcium carbonate production. The act would take effect upon approval by the Governor.
The bill would add Section 44-96-195 to Title 44, Chapter 96 of the South Carolina Code, expanding state solid waste regulation to prohibit land application and commercial distribution of sludge-based materials. It would affect wastewater treatment plants, compost producers, fertilizer and soil amendment sellers, agricultural users, and waste management operators by restricting how sludge and septage-derived products may be handled and marketed in South Carolina. Existing lawful uses of non-sewage organic residuals would remain available if they are kept separate from sludge or septage.
Based on the materials provided, there is no recorded committee debate, vote history, or formal opposition in the available context. The bill’s caption and text suggest a regulatory and environmental protection approach, with a clear intent to tighten controls on sludge-based land application and product sales. Because no transcripts or votes are included, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from legislative discussion, but the bill appears straightforward and policy-driven rather than procedurally contentious in the available record.
The main policy tension is between environmental/public health concerns over sludge and septage use on land versus the interests of wastewater, composting, and agricultural product industries that may rely on those materials as inputs or disposal pathways. The bill’s broad prohibition could be seen as limiting beneficial reuse and increasing disposal costs, while supporters would likely view it as reducing contamination risks. The exceptions for food- and crop-derived residuals, brewing and distilling byproducts, and precipitated calcium carbonate indicate an effort to distinguish sludge-based materials from other organic recycling streams.