Lee Bell National Toxics network Press Release
Whilst the risk assessment report prepared by Toxikos for Gunns focuses almost exclusively on dioxins, there are however other toxins such as resin acids and heavy metals within pulp mill effluent that may also put the seals at risk as they accumulate in sediment dwelling biota, fish species and ultimately the mammals that feed upon them.
GUNNS SEAL STUDY FLAWED AND WILL MISLEAD READERS
Australian Fur Seals at Risk from Pulp Mill Effluent
A report for Gunns Limited by the consultants Toxikos, into the potential impact of effluent from Gunns proposed pulp mill on a nearby colony of Australian fur seals (which are protected under the Federal Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999), contains a range of contradictory and incorrect statements which are likely to mislead readers of the IIS into thinking the effluent is safe.
“A report on the likely impact of the pulp mill effluent on a nearby seal colony uses incorrect and subjective statements that are contradicted by scientific references, to try and present a case that there will be no threat to the seal colony,” said Lee Bell of the National Toxics Network. “The use of conjecture dressed up as science is unacceptable, and makes the assessment of Gunns’ proposed pulp mill impacts almost impossible.”
The National Toxics Network is a non-government organisation working for the reduction of pollution and the protection of environmental and human health. It is particularly concerned with the release of ‘Persistent Organic Pollutants’ (POPs) into the environment. POPs include dioxins and furans, some of the most toxic substances known to science. Tiny quantities of dioxins can ‘bio-accumulate’ in the fatty tissues of animals, birds, fish and people where it can suppress the immune system and cause reproductive abnormalities, skin diseases and some types of cancer.
Gunns’ Integrated Impact Statement (IIS) acknowledges that there will be dioxins in the effluent from their pulp mill if it goes ahead. Dioxins are one of the deadliest chemicals know to man and are know to be persistent, highly toxic and build up through the food chain.
“Toxikos states that ‘dioxins are not significantly bioaccumulated or biomagnified by fish’” said Lee Bell of the National Toxics Network. “To suggest that dioxin does not bioaccummulate in fish is nonsense. This is why commercial fishing in Sydney Harbour has been banned – dioxin contamination in fish and prawns. Such a claim flies in the face of modern science and even contradicts other statements and references used by Toxikos. The use of the term ‘biomagnification’ in this risk assessment is largely irrelevant but is used interchangeably with ‘bioaccumulation’ to try and argue that dioxin will not affect Australian fur seals. In our view this will mislead readers not familiar with toxicological science into thinking the effluent is safe. The public should be made aware that these are pivotal issues upon which the approval of the pulp mill is dependant.”
Despite claims that there will be no significant impact or risk of dioxins bioaccumulating in seals, Toxikos cites a number of scientific papers and studies which contradict their claims and prove that seals do bioaccumulate dioxins:
Dioxins are considered for a quantitative risk assessment herein because ANZECC (2000) has nominated 2,3,7,8-TCDD as being bioaccumulative (Section 5.2 of HHRA). The ANZECC bioaccumulative opinion for dioxins is not well documented but is apparently founded on “elevated dioxin levels found in fish, shellfish and sediments in some localised urban and industrial areas in Australia (Thompson et al. 1992) and overseas (US EPA 1984, CCREM 1987, Palmer et al. 1988)”.
A study by Bignert et al. (1989) of four seal species from widely different areas around the Scandinavian Peninsula that are variously impacted (or non- impacted) by anthropogenic sources of dioxins. The study showed no substantial species or spatial differences in levels of dioxins/furans.
Blubber of harbour seals from the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada (in 1991 and 1992) contained higher concentrations of PCDD/F than did samples from Quatsino Sound on western Vancouver Island (Addison et al. 2005, Addison & Ross 2001). Historically the Strait of Georgia received effluent from six coastal pulp mills that used elemental chlorine in the bleaching process with poor effluent control systems. They also used a wood-chip feedstock that had been preserved with pentachlorophenol (Addison & Ross 2001).
De Swart et al. (1995) fed two groups of approximately 1 year-old harbour seals for two years with fish from two sources. One source had approximately ten fold more TCDD TEQ than the other. While at the end of the two years there was a 31⁄2 difference in blubber concentration between the groups of seals.
While there were geographical differences between dioxin/furan levels and patterns in fish which could be linked to specific point sources of dioxins/furans, and levels were higher in fish eating birds compared to their prey, dioxin concentrations in seals did not indicate biomagnification (de Wit et al. 1992).
“Gunns have been unable to show in their IIS that the Australian fur seal will not be at risk from dioxins and furans which will be dumped into Bass Strait as part of the effluent if their pulp mill goes ahead,” said Lee Bell. “Gunns originally promised a Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) pulp mill which would completely remove the risk of dioxins to all marine life and users of the ocean including humans. Gunns have provided no health risk assessment for direct human contact with their mill effluent which ought to be of great concern to the surfers and other recreational beach users along the coast near the outfall”.
Whilst the risk assessment report prepared by Toxikos for Gunns focuses almost exclusively on dioxins, there are however other toxins such as resin acids and heavy metals within pulp mill effluent that may also put the seals at risk as they accumulate in sediment dwelling biota, fish species and ultimately the mammals that feed upon them.
Mr Bell said, “The RPDC must be aware that the risk to marine life from the contaminated pulp mill effluent must be demonstrated to be negligible if the proposal is to be approved. The risk assessment provided in the IIS for dioxin contamination of the marine environment utterly fails to demonstrate that marine life will be protected. In fact, it cites studies which demonstrate that impacts must occur. The RPDC cannot possibly approve a project that is based upon such poor science as that which is presented in the IIS.”
