1 / 5

Analyzing Trends in Special Concern Pollutant Releases: Insights from PRTR Data

This feature analysis aims to track and analyze the temporal releases of pollutants of special concern, including carcinogens and developmental toxicants, using Pollution Release and Transfer Registers (PRTR) data. Emphasizing consistent reporting across Canada, the US, and Mexico, the analysis will focus on identifying high-priority pollutants and their industrial sources. It will also explore successful pollution prevention initiatives and the potential role of PRTR data in shaping strategies for reducing toxic releases. This study provides a foundation for informed decision-making in pollution control.

thiery
Télécharger la présentation

Analyzing Trends in Special Concern Pollutant Releases: Insights from PRTR Data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ideas for Special Taking Stock Feature Analyses

  2. Tracking releases over time of pollutants of special concern (carcinogens, developmental and reproductive toxicants, PBTs, metals) Rationale: • Over the years, the data show consistent releases of many pollutants that fall into one or more of these categories (re: TS 2005 – 2002-2005 releases of k/s carcinogens and develop/reproductive toxicants – e.g., benzene, mercury, lead and others) • Many of these pollutants are subject to reporting under all three PRTRs because they are considered to be of special concern – for instance, their reporting thresholds are lower • Among the combined hundreds of listed substances on all three lists, these groupings could be a first step towards prioritizing for decision-making relative to pollution prevention and reduction • This would not be a « trends » analysis because that is a complex task, requiring good baseline data and an understanding of what is behind the year-to-year changes.

  3. Comparability of releases and transfers from an industrial sector common to all three countries (e.g., pulp and paper mills; metal mines) Rationale: • Many common pollutants among Canadian and US facilities (re: TS 2006 analysis • Fewer of these pollutants common to Mexican pulp and paper mills reporting (different substance lists) • For metal mines, land disposal (among other practices) for mining waste raises concerns (re: TS 2006 – surface disposal of millions of kg of lead and mercury in the mid/southwest states • New data will be available in Canada for this sector; many facilities also in Mexico • Could also look at either of these resource-intensive sectors from the lens of transnational companies operating across borders • Could analyze data reporting within one of these sectors, vs what could potentially be reported were it not for existing thresholds (a « pilot » gap analysis of PRTR coverage).

  4. Examples of industry pollution prevention successes – and the relationship to PRTR data Rationale: • PRTR data (anecdotal reporting information) reveal that US and Canadian facilities are replacing toxic inputs to comply with European environmental legislation (e.g., REACH, ROHs) • We could conduct a survey of P2 efforts and the reasons behind them – including assessing to what extent PRTR data are used in this respect • It can be very difficult to do a trends analysis – however, many voluntary industry initiatives are multi-year and as a result, some baseline data are established in order to be able to track P2 – these could explored.

  5. Other ideas?

More Related