| |
|
Published in Summer 2005
|
Report flags lead emissions, small facilities
|
| |
|
By Joshua Ostroff
|
| |
|
|
 |
Click on map
|
Although lead releases have declined since the phaseout of
leaded gasoline, a new report on industrial pollution reveals
that the metal and its compounds are the top developmental
toxicant released into our environment.
This year's report, the CEC's ninth annual Taking Stock report, offers its most
comprehensive picture of lead emissions. Canada and the United
States recently lowered their reporting threshold from 10
tonnes to 50 kg, thereby spiking the number of facilities
reporting lead to over 7,000.
"Lead is one of the oldest pollutants that society has been
worried about," says Victor Shantora, head of the Pollutants
and Health program at the CEC. "It's a cross-border concern
that poses a threat to human health and to the environment.
Government, stakeholders and industries can take note and
hopefully reduce pollution even further."
Compiling data from 24,192 facilities in Canada and the United
States, Taking Stock showed that in 2002 over 43.3 million kg
of lead and its compounds were released (including 960,000 kg
to the air), with eight percent coming from Canadian
facilities and 92 percent from US facilities. This represents
almost a quarter of the total releases for the group of 77
chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm analyzed in the report.
Lead is a persistent toxic substance released by a variety of
industrial facilities, though primarily from smelters and
electric power plants. Lead exposure-principally from
deteriorated lead-based paint, or lead-contaminated air,
water, soil or dust-can affect internal organs and impact the
neurological development of children and fetuses, potentially
causing learning problems, behavioral disorders and lowered
IQ. Research also indicates that affected mothers can give
birth to mentally impaired children.
"There's probably no safe level for the neurotoxic affects in
children," explains Kathy Cooper, a lead expert from the
Canadian Environmental Law Association. "We've got solid
scientific evidence of that, which is really rare. Usually
we're talking about the possibility of risk and latent
affects. But you don't have to qualify anything with lead."
"You only get one chance to develop your brain," she adds,
"you mess with that and you mess with it permanently."
Canadian facilities are responsible for 42 percent of lead air
emissions despite only accounting for five percent of total
reporting facilities. On average, Canadian facilities released
lead into the air at a rate 13 times greater than their
American counterparts.
Not everyone, however, sees lead emissions as a major concern
when compared to the total pollution picture.
"We really just don't see it as a problem," says Warren
Foster, director of McMaster University's Reproductive Biology
Division. "I think the government has taken the appropriate
steps on lead. Certainly fetal exposure is a major concern,
but the big question is how low can you drive the exposure
down?"
Overall, 1.5 million tonnes of toxic chemicals were released
into the air, water, land and injected underground, with an
additional million tonnes transferred for recycling and a
half-million tonnes transferred for energy recovery. In addition to lead, over 200 substances are tracked in the Taking Stock report.
To get a more holistic picture of this total, this year's
report focuses on comparing the smaller and larger facilities.
Two-thirds of the total releases were from a mere 615
large-scale facilities, which also showed a 10 percent
decrease between 1998 and 2002. But the more numerous,
smaller-releasing facilities actually increased their toxic
releases over that period. Canadian facilities reporting
releases and transfers of 10,000 kg or less showed a jump of 600 percent in
total releases and transfers, with a 300 percent increase in
air emissions. Smaller-scale facilities in the United States
increased their total releases and transfers by 300 percent
and increased air emissions by 68 percent.
"It's a good thing that these largest facilities are
reducing," says Catherine Miller, the lead consultant on the Taking Stock report. "Nobody's complaining about that. But
there's a very large group of facilities, in terms of numbers,
that in fact does not show reductions."
Since the database is dominated by the few facilities with the
largest releases, the smaller-releasers have been flying under
the radar and thus escaping the scrutiny of local communities.
"In actual tonnage the smaller facilities might not be
releasing that much on average, but the issue is their
proximity to population centers. Because there are so many of
them, these are the facilities that are more likely to be in
your community," explains Shantora.
Though Canada's performance lags behind that of the United
States in certain categories-including a total air emissions
increase of 8 percent versus a US decrease of 21 percent-the
overall trend shows an encouraging 11 percent decline over
five years. [Editor's note: While some of the air pollution
increase in Canada can be attributed to a greater number of
facilities reporting in 2002 compared to 1998, facilities
reporting in both years still contributed an air pollution
increase of one percent in Canada versus an 18 percent
decrease in the United States.] Across both countries,
carcinogenic chemicals showed a drop of 26 percent over the
same time period.
"It seems to me that government and the big facilities have
their act together and are continuing to drive releases
downwards. That's a good thing," Shantora concludes. "I
suppose they could do it faster and go further, but it looks
like people are paying attention and that's the real
objective."
Do you have a question about a particular facility, industrial sector, province or state? The Taking Stock Online web site <www.cec.org/takingstock> allows users to customize reports by chemical, facility, sector or geographic region. |
|
Top
