Environment and health concerns are not confined to Canada. Indeed, many countries have already moved far ahead in responding to the concerns and fears of citizens and activist groups. Moreover, regulatory responses in several countries, and not only in Canada, can place the Canadian mining industry in a difficult position. Regulation of our industry’s production facilities in Canada is an established fact. But a relatively new factor is the growth in health regulation in other countries — regulations that affect the use of Canadian mineral products.
Consider the case of asbestos. On July 6, 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a ban of products containing asbestos. By 1997, the manufacture and sale of products representing almost 94% of U.S. consumption of chrysotile asbestos will be prohibited.
To implement the asbestos ban, the EPA used its authority under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. The act requires the EPA to demonstrate that an unreasonable risk exists during a product’s life cycle and that the risk can be eliminated through the application of regulations which can be shown to impose the least costly burden on society.
The EPA chose a complete ban on the basis of its own assessment of the weight of scientific evidence. In contrast, the Commission of the European Communities and Canada, among other nations, have selected a controlled-use approach. Having looked at the evidence, they decided that chrysotile asbestos can be used safely as long as standards set at low levels of exposure are properly enforced. The Ontario Royal Commission on Asbestos, after a 3-year study, arrived at this same conclusion. As well, the International Labour Organization concluded an international convention on asbestos that provided for the safe control of chrysotile asbestos through the use of rigorous workplace standards.
The asbestos industry plans to challenge the EPA’s ruling in the court system and should have a good chance of overturning parts, if not all, of the EPA ruling. Nevertheless, the market consequences of the EPA’s approach and the attendant publicity surrounding asbestos have all but destroyed the U.S. market for chrysotile asbestos. Canada’s sales in the U.S. have fallen from a peak of about 800,000 tons in 1973 to about 80,000 tons in 1988 — a tenfold drop.
Moreover, the consequences of the ban spread far beyond the U.S. Not only will other countries’ exports of asbestos-containing products to the U.S. be hard-hit, but so will asbestos consumption in other markets, including some developing countries. Within a month of the EPA’s announcement, Singapore announced a ban on most asbestos products effective September, 1989, and it appears that the Ethiopian Ministry of Public Health has just taken steps in the same direction. The full market impact will have to be awaited.
Even a cursory glance at the EPA ruling leads one to suspect that political and economic factors were more significant than the risk to human health. Not only did the EPA have an unusual interpretation of the scientific evidence, but it has also banned certain products, such as asbestos cement pipe and vinyl asbestos tile, from which public exposure and workers’ exposure (using proper work practices) to hazardous levels of fibre are negligible. In contrast, the Washington-based agency provided explicitly for continued U.S. asbestos mining and export. Does the EPA have one standard for certain segments of the American population and another for those involved in U.S. production and export of fibre and those consuming U.S. fibre abroad?
The asbestos industry’s disappointing experience with the EPA serves as a warning that environmental and health concerns can easily get out of hand. Recent pronouncements that would moderate extreme public views on asbestos (The Wall Street Journal editorial “Puncturing a Panic,” Sept 18, 1989, and a report by Harvard University’s Energy and Environmental Policy Centre, Aug 9, 1989) come too late. The die has been cast and asbestos will be banned.
Asbestos is only one example. Many metals, metal compounds and industrial minerals are either suspected or proven health hazards under certain conditions of exposure. When substances are considered to be carcinogens, neurotoxins, mutagens or teratogens (a chemical agent that causes abnormal development or deformities in the unborn), the policy stance of regulators and the attitude of the public and special interest groups take on special significance.
The demonstrated policy perspective of many regulators suggests that for carcinogens, mutagens, neurotoxins and teratogens there are no safe levels of exposure. In other words, one toxic molecule or fibre can have the undesired effect (the “one-hit” theory). When this view is combined with a “zero-risk” philosophy (Why expose society to an unnecessary risk, however small?), the logical conclusion is to consider banning or severely controlling the substance, while promoting the use of substitute materials. Often these substitute materials are perceived as safer, even though little or no testing has been done.
A recent EPA policy paper points to a regulatory philosophy based on two policy preferences, namely source reduction and environmentally sound recycling. Specifically, it indicates that source reduction will be achieved through input substitution, product reformulation, process modification, improved housekeeping and on-site, closed loop recycling. If these options are not feasible, then the EPA would consider environmentally sound recycling.
For the metal mining industry, this regulatory philosophy is further exacerbated by what is referred to as the “metal ion” hypothesis. Essentially, it states that whenever a metal compound is found to be carcinogenic, then the metal and all its compounds should be considered likewise. Clearly, this hypothesis, when taken as general policy, can have dramatic and probably unjustifiable, detrimental consequences for the metal-producing and metal-consuming industries and their communities.
How are public attitudes formed? People with scientific or technical training know that health and environmental issues tend to be rather complicated, with many factors determining biological effects of any substances. But media reporting and statements by pressure groups are often simplistic. Misleading oversimplifications are easily grasped, and are all the more compelling to the general public.
The ordinary citizen is continually told of the risks to his or her health either directly (at the workplace, through product use, or through the food supply) or indirectly (from contaminants in the environment). In this context, who can blame the public for accepting alarmist views and for pressing government to eliminate all risks? Clearly, it is easy to create a public panic against the use of a particular substance, as is the case with asbestos in the U.S. It is much more difficult to persuade the public that a cancer-causing agent can be used safely if properly controlled.
Both regulatory philosophies and public attitudes tend to be critical factors in determining socially acceptable levels of risk, that is, what controls or bans will be imposed on product extraction, manufacture, use, transportation or disposal. Industry must increasingly be a credible and proactive social partner working with other social partners in arriving at mutually acceptable regulatory solutions. In so doing, it can try to ensure that scientific data assume prim
acy in final decisions and that regulations are not used to create barriers to international trade.
The Mining Association of Canada (MAC) is attempting, on behalf of its members, to play a more active role in this field. Some recent and ongoing MAC environmental and health initiatives include:
* the announcement of an MAC Environmental Policy;
* preparation of an Environmental Code of Practice;
* the sponsorship of a research contract to examine the validity of the metal ion hypothesis;
* co-funding a major study in co-operation with National Health and Welfare and Energy, Mines and Resources to determine the availability of and need for toxicological expertise in Canada relating to minerals and metals;
* co-sponsoring a seminar with Eurometaux, the International Lead Zinc Research Organization, and the Nickel Industry Producers Environmental Research Association on metal toxicology, to be held in Brussels in 1990;
* co-sponsoring a minerals and metals conference as part of “Globe 90,” a major international environmental event, to be held in Vancouver in March, 1990;
* arranging mining industry co-funding of a $12.5-million research program on methods to control acid drainage from mine waste and tailings;
* establishing the MAC as a regular part of Environment Canada’s annual consultations with selected industry associations;
* setting up annual meetings between the environmental committees of the American Mining Congress and the MAC;
* participating in an international steering committee of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (U.K.) responsible for organizing a major industry “Conference on the Environment;” and
* exploring the interest of mineral and metal producers in other countries in establishing an International Association on Health and the Environment.
There is little doubt that environmental and health issues will remain high on both the Canadian and international agendas, at least for the 1990s.
]]>
Be the first to comment on "A PLEA FOR COMMON SENSE"