Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

IMPLEMENTING THE BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
Implementation

Stakeholders Forum
November 16-17, 1998 - Chicago, Illinois

Presentation
Chuck Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water

draft Persistent Toxic Substances (PBTs) Strategy and
draft Mercury Action Plan

Good morning. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you this morning about a significant action that EPA is taking today on persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances. This is an excellent forum, because nationwide, the Great Lakes community is the acknowledged leader in calling for the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances (PBTs), and in using creative partnerships to take steps toward that long-range goal.

Just last month the US Department of Health and Human Services published the results of its most recent studies on PBTs in the Great Lakes. The paper reviewed the weight of the evidence on public health risks of exposure to PBTs--including work of wildlife biologists, toxicologists, and epidemiologists. Their summary concludes that there is compelling evidence of neurodevelopmental and reproductive deficits, and possibly immunologic effects. These deficits, the report notes, unlike budget deficits, cannot be repaid.

The Study highlights the populations at risk--children, subsistence and sport anglers, as well as the elderly. However, anyone who eats large amounts of contaminated fish can be affected. And yet, we know that fish are a good source of protein--and we hope people will choose to eat fish that are low in PBTs. It is government’s job to be sure that people have enough information to make that decision.

Together, government and the private sector have made a lot of progress in controlling these PBTs over the past decades, but we are still finding them in our fish supply. The total number of fish consumption advisories in the US increased by 80% from 1993 to 1997, and the number of waterbodies under advisory increased by 180%, from 1,278 to 2,299. This map shows fish consumption advisories issued by States. All of the substances causing fish advisories are PBTs, and all are on the "Level 1," or top priority list of our Binational Toxics Strategy. (Leave this slide up until the mercury section.)

I should clarify that the increase does not mean that the levels of PBTs in the environment are increasing at the rates of increased advisories. The States are doing a better and better job of monitoring and setting protective levels, and this, too, accounts for the increase in advisories.

Today, EPA is announcing a strategy that we think will further reduce risks from these substances across the nation. Finishing the job on persistent, bioaccumulative toxics is especially important to Administrator Carol Browner, because she has been a leader in advocating the protection of children from environmental harm. As you know, the most significant effects of PBTs are felt by children who are exposed to PBTs by eating fish themselves, or through their mother’s consumption of fish while pregnant.

What we’re announcing

Last year in the President’s Clean Water Action Plan, EPA committed to write a multi-media strategy by the end of 1998 that would finish the job on PBTs. In fulfillment of that promise, today, EPA is releasing for public review a draft Multimedia Strategy on PBTs, and a draft national Mercury Action Plan. In addition, the President’s budget includes a $9.3 million line item for this PBT Strategy.

A national strategy for PBTs is needed because these pollutants move back and forth among air, land, and water, they are transported long distances, they come from many different types of sources, and they are long-lasting. Many are entering the Great Lakes from air sources located across the county and around the world. Indeed, international actions are ultimately needed, and both the US and Canada are active participants in international discussions on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Description of the Strategy

The Strategy is a blueprint for linking together all of EP’s tools, across all media -- voluntary, regulatory, compliance and enforcement, international, and research -- in a coordinated and targeted way. We will better integrate pollution prevention into air rules, and we will better consider the impacts of waste disposal and pesticide use on water. In short-- we will target PBTs for cleaner, cheaper, smarter actions.

Components of the Strategy

The first element of the Strategy is to develop and implement "National Action Plans" to reduce risks from select PBTs. EPA’s first national action plans will be developed for the 12 priority PBTs named in the Canada-U.S. Binational Toxics Strategy. The draft Mercury Action Plan we’re announcing today is the first of the plans. We will also be developing draft national action plans for the other 11 high priority substances named in the Binational Toxics Strategy.

The second element of the PBT Strategy takes a step beyond the Level 1 substances, by proposing a way to select additional priority PBTs for future cross-Agency action plans. Already the Agency has developed a draft list of 53 PBT chemicals, which was published in the Federal Register last week. These PBTs are frequently found in hazardous waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Some of these chemicals wind up in hazardous waste because they have been kept out of the air and water through control technologies. To reduce releases of these chemicals to air, water, and land will require incentives for source reduction. EPA will consider whether the substances on this list should be included among the substances that should be targeted for future cross-Agency action.

The third element of the Strategy proposes to stop the flow of new PBTs into commerce. EPA proposed in October to change the way we test new chemicals before they are manufactured. This change would allow EPA to ban or deny commercialization of a chemical, unless and until we get test results that show the chemical is not of high risk. Other actions we are planning include a rule to stop re-introduction of out-of-use PBTs, and incentives to reward the development of lower-risk chemicals as alternatives to PBTs.

The fourth and final element of the Strategy is to develop improved right-to-know measures of progress toward meeting our reduction goals, and toward virtual elimination. To do this, EPA will use national human health and nutrition surveys, a new national study of chemical residues in fish, environmental monitoring data, and improved Toxics Release Inventory data. Later this year, EPA will propose a rule adding certain PBTs to the Toxics Release Inventory and lowering the reporting thresholds for PBTs on the TRI. The first public release of the data obtained through this rule is expected in 2001.

Strategy’s preferences for pollution prevention and collaborative solutions

Consistent with the approach of the Binational Strategy, EPA is committed to an open, interactive process in refining and implementing the PBT Strategy. We want to work very closely with our partners to address the problems posed by these pollutants.

Also, like the Binational Strategy, the PBT Strategy focuses on pollution prevention and a preference for cooperative solutions. Preventing pollution is the best way to safeguard the future well-being of public health and the environment. As necessary, EPA will also use control, remediation, and treatment approaches for managing risks -- such as risks from contaminated sediments -- that are less amenable to prevention-based approaches. These regulatory tools are also needed as an important backstop in the event that voluntary approaches are not successful.

Voluntary agreements underway in the Great Lakes Basin are setting a wonderful example for what can be done cooperatively. Some of you here today have had a hand in the following: the commitment of the Chlorine Institute to reduce mercury use and release from the chlor-alkali sector 50% by the year 2005; the agreement between USEPA and the American Hospital Association calling for reductions of mercury and other PBTs from hospital wastes; and, the agreement with three Indiana steel companies to voluntarily reduce mercury use. I understand that working with the State of Michigan, the automotive manufacturing sector is also moving to replace mercury switches in auto lamps with a safer substitute. This is the kind of stewardship of which we can all feel proud.

Mercury Action Plan

I’ll say a few words about the draft Mercury Action Plan that we are announcing today as part of the PBT Strategy.

Mercury was selected for the first action plan because, first, it is a well-documented threat to public health. Scientists know that mercury causes harmful changes in brain functions, and slows fetal and child development in ways that may have lifelong consequences. Second, mercury moves easily among air, water, and land, so coordinated actions are needed. And, third, it is the leading and fastest growing cause of fish consumption advisories in this country. (Show second slide: "Mercury Fish Consumption Advisories of the US")

Mercury is well known as a neurotoxin that slows fetal and child development and causes irreversible deficits in brain function. About that there is no dispute. Scientific debate is ongoing about the level of mercury exposure at which effects begin to occur. Many, but not all, of these existing studies show adverse human health effects at the level at which tens of thousands of Americans are exposed today, from fish consumption.

I must note that scientists are still working on an important question, whether to revise the reference dose for mercury. By reference dose, we mean the amount which can be consumed for a lifetime without expectation of harmful effects. As many of you know, there is a meeting among researchers and risk assessors this week in North Carolina on the use of these new human studies. In addition, Congress has directed EPA to fund a study by the National Academy of Sciences to make a recommendation on the proper reference dose. That work will be competed about two years from now.

Here is the situation -- there are two well-conducted studies of populations which eat a lot of seafood and are thus exposed to mercury. One shows effects from mercury in school age children; the other study, using different measuring techniques, does not.

This is the same uncertainty the Agency faced with lead, decades ago. Like lead, mercury poses threats to our children that we must address now. We know enough right now to take reasonable actions to reduce exposure to mercury. We should not wait two years to take reasonable mercury reduction actions. Each day 865 pounds of mercury is added to the atmosphere in this country. Tens of thousands of babies are born each year after being exposed to mercury in the womb at levels where some studies have shown adverse health effects. EPA will ensure that our standards fully protect public health.

The draft Mercury Action Plan contains a list of reasonable actions underway and planned across the Agency to address this potent neurotoxin. These action include control of air emissions, seeking better treatment methods for mercury-containing wastes, reduced uses of mercury-containing products, further limited discharges to water, support for State and Tribal mercury control actions, community right-to-know efforts, and better estimating the amount of mercury emitted by power plants. A key point for the Office of Water is the work on revising our human health water quality criterion for mercury to better reflect bioaccumulation and the amount of fish typically eaten by people. Finally, research is needed on product substitution, control technologies, and improving our understanding of the link between air deposition and water pollution.

One important question you may ask is, if we take these actions on mercury, when will the fish be safe to eat every day? The answer is -- not right away. We are dealing with the cumulative effects of decades of pollution, and cleaning it up will take time. However, what we do know is the sooner we act, the sooner the fish will be safe to eat in unlimited quantities.

Conclusion

Today begins a 90-day period for public to comment on the draft PBT Strategy and draft Mercury Action Plan. We encourage you to let us know your views.

Before I leave, I note that the focus of the workshops this afternoon is the continued voluntary promotion of actions to reduce PBTs. I know from my experience in reinvention that there is a lot of creativity and energy that can be devoted to finding better ways to reduce and eliminate PBTs. I am sure that due to your efforts here today the Great Lakes will continue to be a source of inspiration to those around the world who are working on the problems posed by PBTs. I hope you have a very productive afternoon, and I look forward to hearing the report from this meeting.

Thank you.