User:Spencerladner/Legacy pollution
 | This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Spencer Ladner - Rough Draft: Legacy Pollution and My Contributions
My additions have been highlighted in bold
I would like some feedback on the next section I propose adding:
-I would like to expand upon the contents of the International policy section and discuss globally identified pollutants. As well as this, I would like to add more information on the content of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in respect to legacy pollution.
-I would also like to overhaul the Types of sites section as each section is just an excerpt from other wikipedia articles. I think it would be more effective to rewrite these sections in a more contextual manner relating to legacy pollution opposed to the general explanation.
Legacy pollution or legacy pollutants are persistent materials in the environment that were created through a polluting industry or process that have polluting effects after the process has finished. Frequently these include persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals or other chemicals residual in the environment long after the industrial or extraction processes that produced them. Often these are chemicals produced by industry and polluted before there was widespread awareness of the toxic effects of the pollutants, and subsequently regulated or banned. Notable legacy pollutants include mercury, PCBs, Dioxins and other chemicals that are widespread health and environmental effects. Sites for legacy pollutants include mining sites, industrial parks, waterways contaminated by industry, and other dump sites.
These chemicals often have outsized impact in countries jurisdictions with little or no environmental monitoring or regulation—because the chemical were often produced in new jurisdictions after they were banned in more heavily regulated jurisdictions. Often in these countries, there is a lack of capacity in environmental regulatory, health and civic infrastructure to address the impact of the pollutants.
The impact of legacy pollutants can be visible many years after the initial polluting process, and require environmental remediation. Grassroots communities and environmental defender frequently advocate for responsibility of industry and states through environmental justice action and advocacy for recognition of human rights, such as the right to a healthy environment.
Types of sites [edit]
[edit]Brownfields[edit]
[edit]This section is an excerpt from Brownfield land.[edit]
Brownfield refers to land that is abandoned or underutilized due to pollution from industrial use. The specific definition of brownfield land varies and is decided by policy makers and/or land developers within different countries. The main difference in definitions of whether a piece of land is considered a brownfield or not depends on the presence or absence of pollution. Overall, brownfield land is a site previously developed for industrial or commercial purposes and thus requires further development before reuse. Many contaminated post-industrial brownfield sites sit unused because the cleaning costs may be more than the land is worth after redevelopment. Previously unknown underground wastes can increase the cost for study and clean-up. Depending on the contaminants and damage present adaptive re-use and disposal of a brownfield can require advanced and specialized appraisal analysis techniques.
Mine tailings[edit]
[edit]This section is an excerpt from Tailings.[edit]
In mining, tailings or tails are the materials left over after the process of separating the valuable fraction from the uneconomic fraction (gangue) of an ore. Tailings are different from overburden, which is the waste rock or other material that overlies an ore or mineral body and is displaced during mining without being processed. Tailings are likely to be dangerous sources of toxic chemicals such as heavy metals, sulfides and radioactive content. These chemicals are especially dangerous when stored in water in ponds behind tailings dams. These ponds are also vulnerable to major breaches or leaks from the dams, causing environmental disasters, such as the Mount Polley disaster in British Columbia. Because of these and other environmental concerns such as groundwater leakage, toxic emissions and bird death, tailing piles and ponds have received more scrutiny, especially in first world countries, but the first UN-level standard for tailing management was only established 2020.
Abandoned mines[edit]
[edit]This section is an excerpt from Abandoned mine.[edit]
An abandoned mine refers to a former mining or quarrying operation that is no longer in use and has no responsible entity to finance the cost of remediation and/or restoration of the mine feature or site. Such mines are typically left unattended and may pose safety hazards or cause environmental damage without proper maintenance. The term incorporates all types of old mines, including underground shaft mines and drift mines, and surface mines, including quarries and placer mining. Typically, the cost of addressing the mine's hazards is borne by the public/taxpayers/the government.
An abandoned mine may be a hazard to health, safety or environment.
Abandoned gas wells[edit]
[edit]This section is an excerpt from Orphan wells.[edit]
Orphan, orphaned, or abandoned wells are oil or gas wells that have been abandoned by fossil fuel extraction industries. These wells may have been deactivated because of economic viability, failure to transfer ownerships (especially at bankruptcy of companies), or neglect and thus no longer have legal owners responsible for their care. Decommissioning wells effectively can be expensive, costing millions of dollars, and economic incentives for businesses generally encourage abandonment. This process leaves the wells the burden of government agencies or landowners when a business entity can no longer be held responsible. As climate change mitigation reduces demand and usage of oil and gas, it's expected that more wells will be abandoned as stranded assets.
Orphan wells are a potent contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane emissions, causing climate change. Much of this leakage can be attributed to broken plugs, or failure to plug properly. A 2020 estimate of US abandoned wells alone was that methane emissions released from abandoned wells produced greenhouse gas impacts equivalent to 3 weeks of US oil consumption each year. The scale of leaking abandoned wells are well understood in the US and Canada because of public data and regulation; however, a Reuters investigation in 2020 could not find good estimates for Russia, Saudi Arabia and China—the next biggest oil and gas producers. However, they estimate there are 29 million abandoned wells internationally. Abandoned wells also have the potential to contaminate land, air and water around wells, potentially harming ecosystems, wildlife, livestock, and humans. For example, many wells in the United States are situated on farmland, and if not maintained could contaminate important sources of soil and groundwater with toxic contaminants.
Social Impacts and Remediation
[edit]Remediation
Due to environmental consequences of human industrial actions, pollution can be long lasting and remain in an ecosystem.[1] With industrialization and its consequences, methods and technology for repairing the damage and detoxifying the system have been developed.
Bioremediation and Legacy Pollutants
The process of bioremediation relies on the process of employing genetically engineered and modified organisms to remove pollutants from land.[2] Microorganisms are typically used in the process of removing heavy metals from contaminated sources.[2] Common sources of heavy metal contamination from human actions includes cadmium, zinc, copper, nickel, and lead. [1] Microbes employed convert harmful heavy metals into non-toxic versions.[2] The process of using microbes is often considered one of the most safe, effective, and convenient methods of remediation due to the natural ability of native microbes to cleanse toxic products.[1]
Social Impacts in Canada
Giant Mine, Northwest Territories, Canada.
The Giant Mine was a large gold mine that was predominately active during the period of 1949-1999.[3] During this period, approximately 20,000 tonnes of arsenic was released at the site.[4] The mine was owned by the company Royal Oak Mines until 1999. The mine went bankrupt and ownership was transferred to the federal and territorial governments.[5] In the process of operations, ore roasting is a commonly used practice for gold recovery.[3] The Giant Mine used ore Roasting as a method of gold recovery primarily, and with this method of use came the release of large amounts of arsenic. Ore roasting is impactful to toxicity levels of arsenic, increases the solubility, and increases its rate of Bioaccessibility.[3] Studies have shown that underground chambers at the site contain approximately 237,000 tonnes of arsenic trioxide dust.[6] This has lead to arsenic concentrations exceeding 4000 parts per million (ppm) without accounting other sources of arsenic sources and sinks that are present in the area that further contaminate the region.[6] Local Metis populations have given statements regarding the former mine site stating that their land, fish, and water are all contaminated from legacy pollution caused by the site.[7] a representative of the community stated that cancer rates in his community have risen due to the legacy pollution still impacting the local community.[7]
Remediation Project
Athabasca River, Alberta, Canada.
With the development and expansion of oil sand operations in the region of the Athabasca River, concerns have been raised regarding higher cancer rates in local residents due to pollutants from tailing ponds.[8] Evidence of mercury, nickel, thallium, and all 13 priority pollutants were discovered in nearby area samples throughout various seasons in the year varying in concentration.[8] First Nations populations that are reliant on local foods have been found to be directly exposed to Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) as a result of oil sands operations.[9] Fish from the area are the most significant contributors to BaP exposure in the communities, leading to BaP intake levels that rival on average nine cigarettes a day.[9] Levels are anticipated to grow along with industrial expansion in the region.[9]
Most Common Legacy Pollutants and Health Hazards
[edit]The most common legacy pollutants found in the natural environment are lead, arsenic, bromate, brominated flame retardants (BFR's), chlorinated naphthalenes, dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, mercury, PCBs, perchlorate and perfluorinated compound chemicals.[10]
International Policy
[edit]The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants is one of the main international mechanisms for supporting the elimination of legacy persistent organic pollutants such as PCBs.
References
[edit]- ^ a b c Dixit, Ruchita; Wasiullah; Malaviya, Deepti; Pandiyan, Kuppusamy; Singh, Udai B.; Sahu, Asha; Shukla, Renu; Singh, Bhanu P.; Rai, Jai P.; Sharma, Pawan Kumar; Lade, Harshad; Paul, Diby (2015-02). "Bioremediation of Heavy Metals from Soil and Aquatic Environment: An Overview of Principles and Criteria of Fundamental Processes". Sustainability. 7 (2): 2189–2212. doi:10.3390/su7022189. ISSN 2071-1050.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ a b c Verma, Samakshi; Kuila, Arindam (2019-05-01). "Bioremediation of heavy metals by microbial process". Environmental Technology & Innovation. 14: 100369. doi:10.1016/j.eti.2019.100369. ISSN 2352-1864.
- ^ a b c Jamieson, H. E. (2014-01-01). "The Legacy of Arsenic Contamination from Mining and Processing Refractory Gold Ore at Giant Mine, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada". Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry. 79 (1): 533–551. doi:10.2138/rmg.2014.79.12. ISSN 1529-6466.
- ^ Bromstad, Mackenzie J.; Wrye, Lori A.; Jamieson, Heather E. (2017-07-01). "The characterization, mobility, and persistence of roaster-derived arsenic in soils at Giant Mine, NWT". Applied Geochemistry. 82: 102–118. doi:10.1016/j.apgeochem.2017.04.004. ISSN 0883-2927.
- ^ Sandlos, John; Keeling, Arn (2016-07-06). "Toxic Legacies, Slow Violence, and Environmental Injustice at Giant Mine, Northwest Territories". Northern Review (42): 7–21. doi:10.22584/nr42.2016.002. ISSN 1929-6657.
- ^ a b Clark, Ian D.; Raven, Kenneth G. (2004-06). "Sources and circulation of water and arsenic in the Giant Mine, Yellowknife, NWT, Canada". Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies. 40 (2): 115–128. doi:10.1080/10256010410001671014. ISSN 1025-6016.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b Western, Sally Abbott (2021-05-25). "Arsenic Lost Years: Pollution Control at Giant Mine from 1978 to 1999". Northern Review (51): 69–104. doi:10.22584/nr51.2021.004. ISSN 1929-6657.
- ^ a b Kelly, Erin N.; Schindler, David W.; Hodson, Peter V.; Short, Jeffrey W.; Radmanovich, Roseanna; Nielsen, Charlene C. (2010-09-14). "Oil sands development contributes elements toxic at low concentrations to the Athabasca River and its tributaries". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (37): 16178–16183. doi:10.1073/pnas.1008754107. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 2941314. PMID 20805486.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) - ^ a b c Zhan, Faqiang; Parajulee, Abha; Binnington, Matthew J.; Gawor, Anya; Wania, Frank (2023-04-26). "A multi-pathway exposure assessment for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons among residents in the Athabasca oil sands region, Canada". Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts. 25 (4): 755–766. doi:10.1039/D2EM00526C. ISSN 2050-7895.
- ^ Canada, Health (2008-01-31). "Environmental Contaminants". www.canada.ca. Retrieved 2024-03-15.