Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Eliminating Long-lived Poisons from the Great Lakes:
Recommendations for Year 2 Under the Binational Toxics Strategy

In the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Canadian and U.S. governments made a commitment to each other and to the people of the Great Lakes region that they would make a maximum effort to eliminate long-lived toxic pollution from the lakes. Key to the ultimate success of this strategy is a shift in approach away from toxics reduction and management to elimination. This is a major shift in emphasis and carries with it the responsibility to uncover and analyze all sources of toxic substances reaching our lakes and eliminating them at the source. Great Lakes United made a commitment to work with government and industry to achieve this result.

In October, Great Lakes United completed a report on the first year's progress under the Binational Toxics Strategy. In that report, based on interviews with ENGO participants in the Strategy, GLU documented many concerns with progress to date, including:

The continuing erosion of the "regulatory floor" on which the Strategy rests

• Lack of progress in most work groups
• Lack of government leadership and resources
• Lack of commitment to elimination rather than reduction of persistent pollutants

GLU’s Board of Directors decided these concerns are serious enough to consider removing our coalition from further participation in the Strategy process and launching an alternative strategy to guide our efforts towards achieving virtual elimination in the Great Lakes basin. The Board directed those of us who are participating in the Strategy to present to the government representatives our concerns and a set of recommendations for how the Strategy should proceed in year two in order to make our participation viable.

Great Lakes United stands ready to commit to actions and programs consistent with the following recommendations. Our goal for next year is to work with industry and government on at least one major pollution prevention initiative consistent with the letter and spirit of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. However, without some real progress on the part of the governments towards implementing these recommendations, our further participation is problematic. 

1. Provide stronger, higher-level commitment.

As documented in our year-end report, the lack of resources, in terms of funding, staff and even information directed to the Strategy demonstrates a lack of commitment by higher levels of government to its success. This appears to be especially true in Canada, where resources dedicated to the Strategy are thin and the regulatory and monitoring programs necessary to its success have been severely cut.

Therefore, we are asking to meet with Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart and EPA Administrator Carol Browner to request their full support to the Great Lakes program offices and, specifically, to address the following recommendations.

2. Issue a binational policy statement defining Virtual Elimination and Zero Discharge for use in the Strategy.

Because of the legacy of bioaccumulative toxic substances in the sediments and biota of the lakes, the complete elimination of long-lived poisons will take time. In the meantime, we move toward virtual elimination through the principle and practice of zero discharge. We believe this is the essence of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Much progress has been made in redesigning industrial and consumer processes to eliminate the use and release of harmful chemicals, including closed-loop processes to remove the steps that create pollution and utilizing all wastes as resources for other processes. By adhering to a strict definition of virtual elimination and zero discharge we can create the necessary policy conditions to facilitate this transition.

We are concerned about attempts in Canada and Ontario to redefine virtual elimination to mean non-detectable levels of persistent toxic substances in waste streams. This shifts the emphasis from pollution prevention back to pollution control and treatment, which is unacceptable for persistent poisons. It will allow treatment by dilution. It will bog down the regulatory effort in technical debates about appropriate levels of detection.

We are also concerned that the Strategy and work groups are not being guided by consistent virtual elimination policies; for example, when the technologies chosen for attaining reductions are not themselves evaluated against the true goal of elimination.

Therefore, we are asking the governments to issue a binational policy statement that clarifies the Strategy's virtual elimination goal in a manner consistent with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. This policy would guide work group activities. We offer to work on the drafting of this policy.  

3. Renew commitment to substantive information gathering.

In the Binational Toxics Strategy the governments agreed to:  

The real task involved in this promise is far greater than what the governments have so far been able to carry out given the resources invested in the Strategy. The lack of this information causes frustration and cynicism on the part of the NGO participants. In addition to a full accounting of sources of the Level 1 pollutants, we also need a commitment to begin the process with Level II substances, in particular those which are suspected or known to have the potential to affect hormone-mediated processes in humans and animals. At the same time, lack of complete information must not be a reason for postponing actions on eliminating major known sources of Strategy substances.

Therefore, we ask that all known information about the sources and relative amounts of Strategy substances be published in one document and distributed to all stakeholders.  

4. Strengthen work group leadership.

One of the problems with the multi-stakeholder process for the Strategy has been lack of clarity about who is accountable for what. This has led to a lack of progress in almost all of the work groups.

Therefore, we ask that government workgroup leaders be accountable for moving each group’s workplan forward through frequent communication via phone, fax, mail and email. Work groups need to develop a workplan with tasks, milestones and a communication strategy for 1999. Funding needs for stakeholders to participate and undertake tasks should be identified and addressed. 

5. Reevaluate work group missions.

Each work group has decisions before it that depend on how virtual elimination is constituted as a goal. The overall recommendation is that each work group proceed with an eye on the long-term goal of elimination. For example:

Alkyl lead. The challenge is too restricted to invite a multi-stakeholder process. The workgroup needs either to expand its focus to other sources of lead or disband.

Dioxins/furans. The work group should not wait any longer for the EPA’s final reassessment report (now due out in June, 1999) but get on with the business of eliminating known sources of dioxin to the Great Lakes. Two directions for 1999:

• support/expand already organized campaigns to eliminate dioxin such as Health Care Without Harm.
• set up a subgroup to begin to address the many regulatory and policy opportunities to reduce dioxin releases such as:
  • including dioxin in toxic release inventory reporting in both countries.
  • improving medical waste incinerator, hazardous waste combustor and cement kiln emission standards.
  • supporting alternatives to incineration of PCB and pesticide stockpiles.
  • partnering to demonstrate totally chlorine free paper bleaching technology.

Mercury. We need to act on recommendations by NWF and others to focus on a source sector such as utilities, and develop a strategy for 1999 that employs an array of tactics--from policies promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy alternatives to interim measures like fuel switching and emission controls. Since this work group is the most advanced, it could serve as a model for other work groups to go beyond substance-specific reduction goals to implementing pollution prevention and zero discharge in a major source sector.

PCBs. In Canada and the U.S. there are a number of patented non-incineration PCB destruction technologies available, some of which have been developed with considerable government investment. Since what distinguishes the VE Strategy is its focus on elimination, or zero discharge, it should be encouraging, subsidizing, and demonstrating the most advanced policies and technologies for achieving just that. Purveyors of alternative PCB destruction technologies should be at the table in Year 2 and pilot projects set up that are evaluated against the principles of zero discharge and community right-to-know.

Pesticides. This work group should choose a general direction to focus next year’s work. We see at least two directions:

• Focus on Level 2 pesticides; support local initiatives to eliminate their use such as Toronto’s proposed pesticide phaseout.
• Focus on promoting best non-incineration destruction technologies for eliminating pesticide stockpiles.

Benzo(a)pyrene and Hexachlorobenzene. The B(a)P challenge should expand to total PAHs as there is more existing data on total PAHs. PAHs are a major contaminant in Great Lakes AOCs. This work group should consider merging with a dioxin or other subgroup focused on incinerators and combustors as a source.

Octochlorostyrene. CGLI has developed a list of possible sources. This list needs to be shared and independently corroborated for the group to proceed.