Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

IMPLEMENTING THE BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
Implementation

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

Final Report
A First Year Evaluation of Progress Under the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

October 1998

Prepared for:
USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Grant No: GL 985524-01
and
Environment Canada
Contract KW405-8-0261

1. Overview

In October 1997, Great Lakes United agreed to work with the Great Lakes offices of the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada on implementation of the United States - Canada Binational Toxics Strategy. As part of that agreement, GLU was to deliver a year-end report evaluating progress towards the goal of eliminating persistent toxic substances from the Great Lakes basin. We respectfully submit the following report.

GLU’s also has prepared an assessment of current regulations, initiatives and programs in the United States in relation to the goals and challenges of the Strategy. GLU coordinated the work of five partner groups – Alex Sagady & Associates, Atlantic State Legal Foundation, Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, Michigan Environmental Coalition, and Ohio Environmental Coalition – in a report on the "regulatory platform" for the Strategy at the federal level and in four Great Lakes states. A summary of that document, Analysis of Regulations and Programs Relative to Strategy Challenges, will be available in late November.

2. Workgroup Progress

Seven stakeholder workgroups were established to address the five substance-based Strategy challenges. An "Integration Workgroup" also was established to deal with crosscutting issues such as process concerns, industry incentives, and the three challenges involving categories of persistent toxic substances: Level II substances, air transported toxics, and contaminated sediments.

Great Lakes United facilitated the participation of Great Lakes environmental organizations in these workgroups by explaining the Strategy, developing backgrounders on the challenges, underwriting travel and meeting attendance, and conducting follow-up interviews with ENGO participants to monitor activities and progress. Here is a brief summary by workgroup of progress since October 1997.

Dioxins and furans workgroup. Status: Baselines for reduction goals still not established. No workgroup meetings or conference calls since March.

At the time of the workgroup meeting in March 1998, the long-awaited revision of the 1994 Dioxin Reassessment had not been released from the U.S. EPA's National Headquarters Dioxin Office nor were representatives of that office in attendance. Workgroup participants were told that the Challenge allowed for the use of the 1994 Reassessment numbers, but there was still much debate on the validity of these numbers and the accuracy of sources. In June, the Draft Inventory of Sources of Dioxin in the US was published, with the final Reassessment report due to be published in June 1999. The EPA GLNPO has done much work to establish dioxin source and baseline information. In Ontario, Environment Canada’s release of the Draft Dioxin/Furan Inventory has been posted on Greenlane since May 1, 1998.

Mercury workgroup. Status: Fairly well-organized and active.

The next meeting (November 1998) will focus on the electric power industry, with an agenda focused on control technologies, pollution prevention through incremental strategies such as fuel switching, and incentives. Other initiatives/potentials this workgroup should be aware of:

• The June 1998 accord between New England governors and eastern Canadian premiers to cut mercury emissions from power plants, incinerators and other sources by 50% by the year 2003. The agreement looks promising in that it is expected to lead to tougher regulations and has buy-in at the state level. Several ENGOS are looking to bring this model to the Great Lakes region.
• A voluntary agreement between the Lake Michigan Federation, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, U.S.EPA, Bethlehem Steel Burns Harbor, Ispat Inland Inc. Indiana Harbor Works, and U.S.Steel Gary Works to implement a mercury pollution prevention effort entitled the Lake Michigan Primary Metals Project.

PCB workgroup. Status: Good basis for action established; no meetings since March.

At the March meeting participants agreed on taking the following steps:

• EPA/EC would compile a list of existing data and data gaps on transformers in use, and compile a list of relevant training/public education materials (such as Chicago’s Clean Sweep program)
• National Oil Recyclers Association would develop a list of current incentives for PCB reductions.
• The group would survey industry to identify future reduction opportunities.
• Sierra Club and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources would send a letter to the Integration Workgroup concerning the need to address contaminated sediments.

The following action items were tabled:

• Create a map of current PCB distribution.
• Prepare an issue paper on the pros and cons of PCB disposal methods currently favored by both governments.

To date, Sierra Club sent the letter to the Integration Workgroup, the GLU coalition passed a resolution encouraging non-incineration destruction technologies and introduced it to the Integration Workgroup, and the Michigan DEQ Office of the Great Lakes prepared a draft outreach plan.

Octochlorostyrene workgroup. Status: No meetings since March.

The Council of Great Lakes Industries has developed a spreadsheet on suspected producers based on industries’ self-reporting on emissions. Next steps for this workgroup to consider are:

• The corroboration of sources of OCS emissions
• Develop a plan to implement steps to eliminate feedstocks that produce OCS
• Develop a working paper on control technologies and alternative destruction technologies

HCB and B(a)P workgroup. Status: No meetings since March; may need to coordinate with other workgroups dealing with combustion/incineration sources.

The Great Lakes atmospheric deposition monitoring program confirms that long-range air transport is a source of HCB in the Great Lakes. Sources of B(a)P are mainly regional. Since the March meeting, the EPA’s 112C6 inventory has been released, showing sources of significant releases of HCB and B(a)P that were not recognized previously – for example, tire manufacturing and utility coal-burning as sources of HCB; petroleum refining and residential wood burning as sources of B(a)P. EPA is working to release several MACT standards relating to both HCB and B(a)P releases.

Pesticides workgroup. Status: No apparent progress since March.

Since the five Level I pesticides named in the challenge have been banned or canceled in both countries, the plan appears to be to focus on Level II substances and to take a closer look at toxaphene.

Alkyl-lead workgroup. Status: No apparent progress since March.

With the use of alkyl-lead already heavily restricted, ENGO participants asked the Integration Workgroup to broaden the mandate to include all sources of lead impacting human health. To date, no action has been taken.

Integration workgroup. Status: Slow start; unclear agenda.

The Integration Workgroup met in June. Issues addressed included what types of incentive packages would work for industries, and how the workgroups would deal with crosscutting challenges such as air transported toxics and contaminated sediments. A subgroup was formed to look at incentives. No other decisions were made. The question was raised and it remains unclear how decisions will be made.

3. Concerns

a. The Strategy in the context of a weakening regulatory regime

In its Ninth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality (July 1998), the International Joint Commission expresses concern over a weakening regulatory regime and lack of political will to protect the environment: "The Commission wonders whether the regulatory framework itself has been compromised and the research infrastructure placed at undue risk. There is also a tendency to redefine the goal for persistent toxic substances to be not virtual elimination through zero discharge but input reduction, a clear shift away from the Agreement’s purpose." (17, 18)

This erosion of government environmental protections appears especially to be the trend in Ontario. The Fall 1997 volume of the Canadian Environmental Law Association’s newsletter notes a 44% cut in the operating budget of the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy from 1994-95 to1997-98, including a 30% cut for compliance and enforcement, and a 36% cut in staff. The very term "virtual elimination" is at risk of being redefined in Canada in a way that would conflict with Canada's international obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Given these developments, many of our Canadian members see the Strategy as not supplementing environmental regulations for persistent toxics, but as supplanting them with a much weaker voluntary regime. The stated premise of the Strategy is that voluntary measures only work if they build upon, not replace, a reliable and strong regulatory approach.

b. Ambiguities related to Strategy goals

Is the goal virtual elimination or is it only to achieve the designated reductions? So far the workplan and discussions have focused on reduction targets, but many ENGOs believe this is taking us down the wrong path for the following reasons:

• If success is measured in terms of reaching percent reductions from baseline amounts, then baseline information becomes all important. However, for many of the Level I and Level II substances, baseline information is nonexistent or highly debatable. The debates on dioxin baseline information are a case in point.
• In a virtual elimination context, the reduction of one toxic substance should not lead to the generation of another. The current Strategy workplan contains no guidelines for evaluating reduction methodologies in these terms. For example, environmental groups have questioned the rush to burn stockpiles of chlorinated compounds like PCBs and targeted pesticides on the basis that incineration creates another point source of dioxin and other persistent toxic substances, while alternative destruction technologies exist that would not emit toxics. Yet incineration apparently remains the preferred mode of destruction for both governments.
• Reduction goals may imply different technology investments than elimination goals. The dioxin workgroup offered the example of a pulp mill choosing chlorine dioxide bleaching to achieve reduction goals, which could preclude making the capital investments needed for chlorine free production.
• The focus on achieving reduction goals appears to be leading to a premature tally of "successes" that may have nothing to do with the Strategy. If this is the thrust of the November stakeholder meeting, many will feel it is taking credit where credit is not due, while avoiding the real challenges before us.

c. The implementation process and resources

It is unclear how strategic decisions will be made, how those decisions will be carried out, and whether the resources are in place to back them up. For example, Great Lakes United, the National Wildlife Federation and many of the twenty or so participant ENGOs have brought most of these issues to the table in conference calls and workgroup meetings. However, there has been no substantive response by the governments to these issues, nor were they reflected in the minutes. It is difficult to convince ENGOs that are already pressed for time and resources to become actively engaged in this kind of loose process.

There appears to be a lack of commitment to the Strategy in both countries. This is manifested by:

• Shortages in staffing -- for example, only two representatives of Environment Canada were present at the Integration meeting and none of the EC work group leaders
• Lack of leadership, accountability, agenda setting and communication in all of the workgroups except mercury
• Lack of basic information -- as when EPA Headquarters continues to postpone release of the dioxin report
• Lack of funding -- no dedicated financial resources in either country to support ENGO toxic reduction initiatives under the Strategy.

4. Conclusion

It is still too early to tell whether or not the Binational Toxics Strategy can be successful. Great Lakes United plans to work with environmental NGOs to help develop concrete agendas and timelines for the workgroups, with the hope of either strengthening the process or clarifying alternative paths to virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River ecosystem.