industry and environment - DTIE

Chemicals management
participating in ARET, including 13 mining companies,
118 have already met or exceeded their
2000 ARET reduction targets in all the substance
categories they report on. While the reduction of
persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances
on the A1 level is somewhat slower than expected
(at 52% reduction from the base year), ARET participants
continue to make good progress towards
achieving their targets. Releases of elemental and
inorganic mercury have been reduced by 88.7%.
While not every company in Canada participated
in this initiative, ARET has demonstrated
what is technically and economically possible.
Challenges, knowledge gaps and areas
of uncertainty
Because mercury is a naturally occurring element,
distinguishing natural from anthropogenic sources
is difficult. There are complexities in relating
atmospheric levels to levels observed in fish and
other biota. As a result of these complexities, it is
currently uncertain to what extent reductions in
the anthropogenic component of mercury in the
atmosphere may correspond to measurable reductions
in ecosystems, including those in remote
areas such as the Arctic.
Information is needed to assess mercury inputs
from active volcanic regions of North America,
including both passive degassing and eruption
events. Researchers at the University of Hawaii 22
have indicated that volcanic mercury emissions
tend to be underestimated in global inventories,
and Canadian researchers 23 have noted that contributions
of mercury to the oceans from submarine
volcanism and other sea floor processes have
been neglected in published global budgets.
Conclusion
Canadian governments have taken proactive initiatives
to reduce anthropogenic emissions of toxic
substances, including mercury, to the environment.
Regulations and policies have been complemented
by voluntary industry initiatives and
supported by scientists who continue to investigate
how naturally occurring elements like mercury
enter the food chain, so that these routes can
be mitigated.
References
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
(1999) Workshop on Mercury Emissions Standards.
Calgary, Alberta.
Commission for Regional Cooperation, North
American Working Group for the Sound Management
of Chemicals (1997) North American
Regional Action Plan on Mercury. Montreal
(www.cec.org).
Environment Canada, Transboundary Air Issues
Branch (1998) The Status of Cadmium, Lead and
Mercury in Canada: Natural Resources and Environmental
Contaminants.
Pilgrim, Wilfred (1998) New Brunswick Department
of the Environment. Fredricton, New
Brunswick, Chapter VIII, in: Northeast States for
Coordinated Air Use Management, Northeast
Waste Management Officials Association, New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
and the Ecological Monitoring and
Assessment Network, The Northeast States and
Eastern Canadian Provinces Mercury Study. Portland,
Maine, 1998 (www.cciw.ca/eman)
Notes
1. This was the primary use of mercury in Canada
until the 1960s.
2. State of the Arctic Environment Report, 2002
(www.amap.no), pp. 86-89.
3. Canada’s Submission to UNEP’s Global Mercury
Assessment, September 2001.
4. The blood mercury levels of common loons
increase from west to east across Canada and the
US. They are generally highest in southeastern
Canada, with the highest value (.6 ppm) from
birds nesting in Kejimkujik National Park.
5. For reference, see www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/
EN/efca.cfm.
6. State of the Arctic Environment Report, 2002
(www.amap.no).
7. Canada’s Submission to UNEP’s Global Mercury
Assessment, op. cit.
8. Northern communities are those north of 60
degrees north latitude.
9. Health Canada uses a factor of 300 to convert
hair mercury levels to blood levels; the WHO uses
a factor of 250.
10. The Minerals and Metals Policy of the Government
of Canada: Partnerships for Sustainable Development,
1996 (ISBN 0-662-251540-7) (www.
nrcan.gc.ca/mms/sdev/policy-e.htm).
11. See www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/
ghs.html.
12. See www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/regulations.
13. Mercury in daily effluent must not exceed
0.00250 kg/tonne of chlorine times the reference
production rate.
14. The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International
Trade (www.pic.int).
15. Phase I, 1991-1997, and Phase II, 1998-2003.
16. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation,
Phase 1 Report, as quoted in Canada’s
Submission to UNEP’s Global Mercury Assessment,
September 2001.
17. North American Regional Action Plan on
Mercury, 1997, Canada’s Status of Mercury in
Canada Report.
18. See www.ccme.ca.
19. See www.chem.unep.ch/mercury.
20. CEC Council Resolution 95-05.
21. Details can be found at www.ec.gc.ca/nopp/
aret/en/el3.cfm.
22. Siegel, B.Z. and S.M. Siegel, Hawaiian volcanoes
and the biogeology of mercury, in: Volcanism
in Hawaii: Geological Survey, 1987. Prof. paper
(ed. R.W.Decker), Rep. No. P 1350, pp. 827-839.
23. Rasmussen, P. and P. Doyle, Partitioning net
exposure among different sources. Ecological risk
assessments of priority substances under the Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. Resource Document,
March 1996 (draft), pp. III-1 to III-26. ◆
42 ◆ UNEP Industry and Environment April – September 2004