Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

IMPLEMENTING THE BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
Implementation

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

Presentation
George H. Kuper, President, Council of Great Lakes Industries

Good Morning,

After more than half a dozen years of planning, strategizing, debating, etc. by us all, CGLI is pleased to be finally actively engaged with other stakeholders implementing the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. A year ago, CGLI committed some of it’s own resources augmented by a grant from the USEPA and another from Environment Canada to mobilize and coordinate industry support of the Strategy.

By way of background, the Council of Great Lakes Industries is a not-for-profit organization that represents the common interest of U.S. and Canadian industrial organizations. We work to ensure that industry is a substantive, constructive partner in the Great Lakes region’s public policy development process. We also have an affiliation with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development in Geneva Switzerland. Our members are predominately very large companies, many of which operate on both sides of the border.

A sizable percentage of CGLI’s agenda is devoted to the Strategy’s success. That is primarily because CGLI regards the strategy as a very important vehicle for achieving objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement objectives regarding the virtual elimination of persistent toxics substances.

CGLI’s tasks have been primarily to increase awareness of this voluntary program and its opportunities within the broad spectrum of industrial organizations in the basin. We are also collecting information regarding the successes that have already been achieved and, importantly, the future commitments made by companies and industries in eliminating or reducing persistent toxic substance discharges.

What have we found in our first year of activity?

In spite of the limitations which I’ll get into in a moment, substantial progress has been made toward achieving the goals of the Binational Toxics Strategy. We plan on sharing the support for this conclusion with you through our participation here today and tomorrow, as well as through our report submitted to the Great Lakes National Program Office less than a month ago. (I’ve brought copies or if you prefer, you can get it from our web site, www.cgli.org)

At this time, I won’t get into the specifics of each substance. However, I can’t resist telling you of my surprise and delight to discover that battery manufacturers have reduced the use of Mercury in their products by 99.95% over the 10 years ending in 1995. At the beginning of that decade battery manufacturers represented 55% of Mercury use. By 1995 less than ½ ton was in use, and that for very special applications. Similarly electric lamp producers have cut their use of Mercury by half.

We have also made huge strides in understanding which processes are contributing to the USEPA/EC estimates of substance release. For example, we have been able to determine that only 11.9 – 38.5 grams of the total estimated 3000 grams of dioxins/furan releases came from ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride monomer, and polyvinyl chloride production processes. Gaining that kind of understanding goes a long way to helping us figure out where one puts one’s efforts and significantly, it modifies some old and incorrect assumptions of sources of release.

It probably is no surprise to you that a significant number of industrial organizations that we’ve contacted have either been unaware of the existence of the Strategy or are insufficiently familiar with its challenge goals to be able to initiate activities. We believe our work has substantially increased the industrial community’s awareness of the Strategy. When talking to companies we emphasize that the BNTS is truly voluntary, but we all know perfectly well that the only aspect of the Strategy that is voluntary is how to get it done, not whether or not to do so.

The result is that the region’s industries are now making new commitments to address Level 1 substances. The most recent dramatic example is the voluntary agreement regarding Mercury use and release signed by three Indiana steel mills, the Lake Michigan Forum, USEPA, and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. A similar example of these new commitments is the Dow Chemical Company’s commitment to reduce air and water emissions of hexachlorobenzene and Mercury compounds by 75% by 2005.

Smaller industries are clearly less aware of the Strategy and remain so. We are seeking effective ways to communicate with smaller firms, but it is extremely difficult. Suggestions are more than welcome.

I must also point out that overlaps between what we are doing under the Strategy and other regulatory programs in both countries, are of concern to industry. One example is the Strategy’s chemical release targets that do not necessarily match those set by other regulatory programs. For instance, the characterization of chemical substances regulated by the Clean Air Act MACT standards calls for total PAHs while the strategy focuses on B(a)P. Therefore, release and control capability data are less likely to be available for these specific BNTS Level 1 listed substances.

As you might expect companies, like all organizations including governments, have limited resources available to meet a wide range of regulatory mandates and pre-existing voluntary commitments. And these demands may have a higher priority than volunteering for Strategy implementation efforts. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with the voluntary approach nor that the BNTS should become a regulatory program. What it does mean is that, because of limitations on resources, companies and industries must approach participation in the Binational Toxics Strategy on a risk-based prioritized basis.

First, it means that those substances present at levels which represent the most significant threat to eco-system health and which can be addressed on a cost effective basis must be tackled first.

Second, volunteering to address high priority substances of the Strategy also has to be weighed by companies against the need to commit resources for other non-optional compliance mandates. It has been suggested a Project XL style trading program where strategy substances are addressed in lieu of other mandated programs may provide a greater interest in increased participation.

None of the forgoing is intended to throw a wet blanket on the significant progress that is being made. It is, instead, offered as an opportunity to factor in some reality to our future plans. It’s obvious that industrial organizations value the voluntary options to address the Strategy’s objectives. In fact, the "voluntary" approach is the only thing which can work in the virtual elimination arena where we are asked to address extremely small amounts of chemical substances from a broad range of sources and source categories. The scope of this effort does not lend itself to traditional regulatory fixes.

As CGLI approached industry, we found some industry players do not perceive the BNTS process to be as flexible as it was intended to be. This is because they were asked to sign up after substances were selected and challenges established. We have been unable to provide them with the process used to select substances because it isn’t defined in the strategy. We are also unable to address their questions of their relative contribution to the total quantity of the substance targeted because its often unknown. Ideally, more industries should participate in the chemical selection and reduction targets to get the sense that they are more a ‘partner in’, rather than a ‘victim of’ this voluntary initiative.

And also, as we go forward it is appropriate to remind ourselves of the very specific challenge targets set at the outset of the Agreement. We’re going to have to work hard to keep our focus on those targets and avoid the ‘siren song’ of chasing every last molecule of the listed substances.

We look forward to your inputs and guidance during the breakout sessions and/or any other time you would like offer them.

Thank you,