Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Five Year Perspective
May 2002

Introduction

Significant progress has been made since the signing of the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) by Canada and the United States in 1997. Both parties have engaged in a wide range of activities to address sources of “Level I” substances which have immediate priority for virtual elimination. These substances include mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and furans, hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P), octachlorostyrene (OCS), alkyl-lead, and five cancelled pesticides including chlordane, aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex, and toxaphene.

The GLBTS represents the most comprehensive effort by the two countries to date to achieve a mutually agreed-upon commitment to virtually eliminate persistent toxic substances from the Great Lakes environment. Environment Canada (EC), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and stakeholders from industry, academia, state/provincial and local governments, First Nations, Tribes, and environmental and community groups have worked together towards the achievement of the Strategy's challenge goals. Substance-specific workgroups have worked to eliminate the Level I substances from the Great Lakes Basin, and an Integration Working Group has addressed issues that fall outside the scope of the substance-specific workgroups. The accomplishments and ongoing efforts of these workgroups and of GLBTS stakeholders over the past five years, as well as the challenges that remain, are highlighted below.

GLBTS Leadership and Progress

Working Relationships Established: Awareness, Networking, Coordination and Implementation: To date, over 150 industry representatives, 75 state/provincial and local government representatives, and members of numerous non-government and environmental organizations have participated in the GLBTS process.

Examples of Industry partners include: the American Automobile Manufacturers Assn., Canadian Chemical Producers' Assn., Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, Chlorine Chemistry Council, Chlorine Institute, Council of Great Lakes Industries, Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Assn., National Electrical Manufacturers Assn., Portland Cement Assn., Steel Manufacturers Assn., and Utility Solid Waste Activities Group.

Examples of Non-governmental organizations include: the Delta Institute, Ecology Center of Ann Arbor, Great Lakes United, Greenpeace, Health Care Without Harm, Inform Inc., National Wildlife Federation, Pollution Probe, Sierra Club, Toronto Environmental Alliance, and Western Lake Superior Sanitary District.

Over 500 Substance-Specific Workgroup meetings and 20 Integration Workgroup meetings have been held since the GLBTS inception, and biannual GLBTS Stakeholder Forum meetings have been held every year since 1998.

Seven Substance-Specific Workgroups

• Reports completed on sources, current controls, and reduction opportunities (Step 1, 2, and 3 reports) for mercury, PCBs, dioxins/furans, alkyl-lead, B(a)P, OCS and HCB; and,
• Completed reports documenting achievement of challenge goals for the Level I pesticides, OCS, and alkyl-lead.

GLBTS Integration Working Group

• Established in 1998 to address issues relevant to but falling outside the scope of workgroups that address specific Strategy substances;
• Conducted a Municipal Solid Waste and Incineration Workshop; and,
• Conducted a Sediments Workshop.

A GLBTS web site has been developed to share information and increase awareness: http://www.binational.net

Binational Progress: Canada and the United States

The following table shows Canadian and U.S. progress towards the challenge goals agreed upon in the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS). It represents overall progress that has occurred in the two countries, in some cases in addition to the GLBTS efforts.

* The Level I Pesticides include: chlordane, aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex, and toxaphene
Sources for Table 1: (For mercury:) USEPA, 2001. Progress Update: Mercury Release and Use Reduction Challenge. October 18, 2001, Access: http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mercury/progress.html; (For OCS) USEPA, 2000. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Octachlorostyrene (OCS) Report Stage 3; (All other substances:) USEPA, 2002. Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, 2001 Progress Report, Access: www.binational.net.

Working Group Highlights

Mercury: Signed agreements with the American Hospital Association and Indiana Steel Mills to reduce mercury in facilities.
PCBs: Obtained commitments from automobile and steel manufacturers and utilities to reduce PCBs. Established a web site to facilitate the identification and removal of PCB equipment.
Dioxins / Furans: Supported a household garbage burning "burn barrel" reduction campaign and initiated a PCP-treated wood disposal assessment by the Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group.
HCB / B(a)P: Supported wood stove changeout programs in Canada and the U.S; conducted education outreach on scrap tire fires.
OCS: Assessed data on OCS sources and trends in the environment.
Pesticides: Confirmed no use or production of the Level I pesticides and began assessment of pollution prevention opportunities for the Level II pesticides.
Long-Range Transport: A bilateral experts workshop is planned for 2002 for consultation on knowledge gaps and options for a path forward.
Sediments Workshop: In partnership with the Great Lakes Commission, the GLBTS sponsored a two-day workshop on April 24-25, 2001 to focus on sediment treatment technologies and implementation, environmental and industry perspectives, a history of sediment treatment in the Great Lakes, and solutions to overcoming barriers to sediment remediation. Over 100 participants from government, industry, environmental organizations, and consulting and technology firms attended the workshop.
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Workshop: A workshop was held in Toronto on May 15, 2000 to illustrate how life-cycle management can be used as a tool to help evaluate environmental tradeoffs when reducing toxics associated with integrated waste management. A decision support tool was applied for analyzing strategies for the management of municipal solid waste for four scenarios for a community in Wisconsin.
Upcoming Workshops: Planning an Emerging Issues Workshop in partnership with the International Joint Commission Science Advisory Board in Fall 2002.

Project Highlights: Examples

Burn Barrel Subgroup: Formation of a Burn Barrel Subgroup under the Dioxin Workgroup was initiated in the Spring of 2000 to address the emerging issue of residential garbage burning, which is estimated to become the largest source of dioxin emissions after air emissions standards for industrial sources such as hazardous waste incinerators are in place. Through surveys and research conducted over the past two years, the Subgroup developed a strategy in May 2001 for seeking reductions in backyard trash burning, and has spent the last year developing education and outreach materials, as well as contacting decision makers and outreach partners. A broad public outreach program on both sides of the Canada/U.S. border will take place in the Summer/Fall of 2002, starting in the Lake Superior region. The U.S. and Canada are looking to the subgroup's Household Garbage Burning Strategy in the Great Lakes Basin as a model for other regions of the two countries.

PCP-Treated Wood Assessment: The ultimate disposal fate of PCP-treated utility poles was identified as a priority by the Dioxin Workgroup in 2000. In response, the Utilities Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), a member of the Dioxin Workgroup: (1) conducted a comprehensive survey of electric utility management practices for treated wood poles removed from service; (2) sponsored an Electric Power Research Institute report on current treated wood pole disposal and recycling options; and (3) developed a Treated Wood Guidelines document that will ensure the continued commitment of the electric utility industry to the sound use and management of treated wood. The Dioxin Workgroup leaders deeply appreciate the leadership provided by USWAG.

Great Lakes Great Stove and Fireplace Changeout: This program has accelerated the turnover of old wood stoves by educating the public about the environmental benefits of replacing old wood stoves and inserts and by providing financial incentives for the purchase of cleaner burning appliances. From February through April 2001, the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association of Canada, in partnership with the Canadian and Ontario governments, sponsored a residential wood stove education and changeout program in the Georgian Bay area of Ontario. The changeout program resulted in a replacement of 85 old wood stoves with advanced technology stoves and the participation of over 1,200 people in 12 workshops to increase awareness of cleaner, safer burning practices. In the U.S., an extensive wood stove changeout program also was held from February through April 2001 in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. At least 1,200 old stoves or stove inserts were replaced, and the program/effort won a Clean Air Act Excellence Award from EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation in 2001. In addition to providing support for the wood stove change over effort, the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association worked with EC to conduct testing of wood stove releases of dioxins/furans, PAHs, HCB, and particulate matter. While focusing on reductions of B(a)P and particulate matter, the wood stove changeout program also led to reductions in other air toxics.

PCB Reduction Commitments: In the U.S., three major U.S. automobile manufacturers committed to remove 100% of their PCB equipment, three major steel producers reported on their PCB reduction efforts, with one committing to reduce high level PCBs in its electrical equipment by 95% by 2006, and ten major investor owned utilities in the Basin indicated they would continue programs to remove their PCBs or that they had already phased out their PCB equipment. In Ontario, 42 electrical utilities submitted their voluntary commitment letters for achieving GLBTS targets. A number of small to medium utilities achieved the 90% PCB reduction target.

Under the Memorandum of Understanding between the American Hospital Association and USEPA, Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E) has produced a Mercury Virtual Elimination Plan for U.S. hospitals. With the support of EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office, the National Wildlife Federation, in partnership with the Health Care Without Harm Campaign, expanded its Mercury-Free Medicine campaign to over 160 facilities in the Great Lakes states that have now pledged to become mercury-free.

Mercury Switch Out Program: Spearheaded by Pollution Probe, in partnership with Environment Canada, Ontario Power Generation, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and the Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association, this program resulted in the collection of more than 2,500 mercury-containing lighting switches from 11 auto dismantlers across Ontario in 2001.

Early Achievement of Chlor-alkali Mercury Reduction Goal: The Chlorine Institute and its member mercury-cell chlor-alkali companies reported a 75% reduction in mercury use since 1995. This industry, previously the largest user of mercury in the United States, voluntarily committed in 1997 to achieve 50% reductions in mercury by 2005, below a baseline of average annual use between 1990 and 1995. Beginning in 1998, the Institute has provided an annual report on progress in achieving this commitment. The Fifth Annual Report, submitted April 25, 2002, shows that mercury use by this industry fell 81% in total between 1995 and 2001; adjusted for a decline in production capacity, the decrease was 75%.

Challenges Ahead

Since its inception in 1997, significant progress had been made towards the GLBTS challenge goals. In order to ensure that this pathway of progress continues into the future, Canada and the U.S., with help from the many partners involved in the GLBTS, will continue to identify opportunities to reduce GLBTS substances on the road to virtual elimination. To further this effort, the following will be undertaken:

• Continue efforts to reduce Level I substances that have not yet met their challenge goals;
• Define next steps to reach closure for Level I substances that have met their challenge goals;
• Continue to monitor air, water, sediments, fish and other biota in the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem;
• Confirm positive trends in the environment from source reductions;
• Consider impacts to the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem from Level II substances and other potential emerging chemicals of concern;
• Continue to report efforts to remediate contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes Basin; and,
• Work cooperatively with national and international efforts to address impacts of long-range transport.

For more information about the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy, contact Alan Waffle at (416)739-5854 alan.waffle@ec.gc.ca, or Edwin (Ted) Smith at (312)353-6571 smith.edwin@epa.gov.

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us