Pulping Alberta-Toxic Waters
By Dr. D.W. Schindler
One of the saddest legacies of the pulping of the Boreal Forest is water pollution.
In Ontario, decades of mercury contamination of rivers have made fish inedible, and bark and woodchips have fouled spawning beds. Fortunately for Albertans, the ecological disasters caused such past methods were realized before plans were formed to turn Alberta's boreal into paper, so that the more modern mills in this province have largely avoided these problems.
Unfortunately, the pulp and paper industry in Alberta has blossomed just before a few remaining insidious problems with pulp mill discharges are solved. One of these problems is the toxicity of organic compounds discharged into rivers. These chemicals pose problems to the people and animals that eat the fish as well as the fish themselves.
Unfortunately, the pulp and paper industry in Alberta has blossomed just before a few remaining insidious problems with pulp mill discharges are solved
Pulp mill effluent contains hundreds of organic compounds, many of which are known to be toxic or carcinogenic, and many have unknown properties. These compounds cause sterility in some species of fish-eating birds and small mammals.
South Peace Environmental Association (from postcard)
In humans, a recent review commissioned by the US government concludes that there is a significant link between certain types of soft-tissue cancers and dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD). Dioxin is already recognized as a potent animal carcinogen and has been implicated as dangerous to health in studies involving pesticides (including the Agent Orange controversy), in industrial accidents, and as a contaminant of various sanitation aids.
In Alberta, these compounds have been found at such a high levels in fish from the peace and Athabasca River systems that health advisories were issued.
Industry has moved rapidly to try to eliminate dioxins and furans from the pulping process. Through substituting chlorine dioxide for chlorine in the bleaching process, they have been able to "virtually eliminate" the most notorious dioxin and furan (2,3,7,8_TCDF).
Unfortunately, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has shown that aquatic food chains can biomagnify even these "virtually eliminated" amounts to values that, again, require posting of health advisories. Recent studies performed by fisheries scientists have shown that effluent remains toxic even after dioxins and furans have been "virtually eliminated". Toxic compounds from the effluent have been detected in concentrations high enough to cause problems hundreds of kilometers downstream from the nearest pulp mill.
How is our government protecting our health? Most testing of effluent discharge relies on the "Lethal Concentration to 50%" (LC-50) test. This test involves exposing laboratory reared rainbow trout and small crustaceans to effluent for 96 hours. If 50% of the animals survive, the effluent "passes".
This test is, however, an absurd safeguard of our water quality. When it was used to monitor acid rain's effects on fish, it was found that the LC-50 understimated actual damage to aquatic life by tenfold. This short term test also does not address serious long-term problems like biomagnification, carcinogenicity, reproductive effects, or the toxicity of the compounds' biodegradation products. Furthermore, current regulations assess each mill in isolation from others and disregard the size of the river being polluted. And yet, with the odds stacked so heavily in their favour, mills commonly fail the LC-50 test. As of this writing, the Proctor and Gamble mill in Grande Prairie has failed over half of its last 26 testings.
Why should we worry about the threat theses compounds pose? There are a number of reasons. First, these pulp mills discharge into the Peace or Athabasca river systems, which flow through our northern regions where tens of thousands of aboriginal people rely on fish for a very high proportion of their food.
Second, organochlorides could be eliminated simply by eliminating or modifying the bleaching process -chlorine-free bleaching technology does exist. In any case, it is ridiculous to accept any risk at all for the production of snowy-white disposable diapers, paper towels or toilet paper.
Third, many of these compounds are very persistent -they are not affected by degradative organisms and because of this, once polluted, the recovery of river systems will take many years.
Fourth, the monitoring of these compounds is very expensive. Setting up a detection analysis laboratory takes millions of dollars, and once set up, could process only a few hundred samples a year. Even once the concertration of each compound has been determined, toxicology studies must be done on it, both alone and in combination with others found in the effluent, and these studies are also extremely expensive and time-comsuming. It seems a much wiser and more economical solution to eliminate the problem before it becomes a threat.
In the Great Lakes Basin, these considerations have led the International Joint Commission to recommend that discharges of persistent toxins, including those from pulp mill effluents, be eliminated entirely. This recommendation was accepted by both the U.S. and Canadian governments.
In Alberta, because the environmental threat has not reached the drastic proportions it has in Ontario, we still have the opportunity to avoid costly cleanups, polluted rivers and horrendous legal battles. We can simply go slow. Pulping technology is changing rapidly, and people are beginning to demand the elimination of environmentally-questionable technology.
These [poisonous] compounds have been found at such a high levels in fish from the Peace and Athabasca River systems that health advisories were issued
Yes, such a go-slow approach may reduce the number of jobs in construction and forestry, but these jobs have been proven to be short-term and low-paying. The history of pulp mill towns in North America is not one of long-term prosperity. In many cases where forest have largely been cut, it was realized too late that clearcutting crippled the later development of other industries, such as tourism. These past lessons indicate that a more balanced approach to forest development is more appropriate, to maximize the prosperity of sponsoring communities instead of multinational corporations. Who among us wants a job if the technology that produces it severely handicaps future generations or compromises their environment?
The large number of environmental and economic unknowns led the Alberta Pacific Review Board, of which I was a member, to recommend to the governments of Alberta and Canada that the construction of the ALPAC mill be postponed until some of these questions were resolved. The board was composed of people with a broad variety of backgrounds, including businessmen, educators, native leaders, farmers and ecologists. Despite differences in lifestyles, expertise and biases, the ALPAC Review Board worked very closely together, and their final recommendations were unanimous, reflecting both the weight of scientific evidence and popular opinion. I have never been associated with a finer, more dedicated group of people.
Unfortunately, the Board's conclusions were largely disregarded by politicians in their race to allocate boreal logging rights, a sad commentary on the value that politicians place on science, popular opinion, and the public process... but that is another story.
Dr. D. W. Schindler is the Killam Professor of Ecology at the University of Alberta.
