Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholder Forum - 1998

IMPLEMENTING THE BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
DRAFT SUMMARY OF WRITTEN STAKEHOLDERS COMMENTS
ON DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Prepared by:
USEPA/Environment Canada
September 12, 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Purpose/Introduction/Context
2.2.1 Comments on Proposed Principles
2.2.2 Suggestions for New Principles
2.3 Review of Organizational Structure
2.3.1 Steering Team
2.3.2 Multi-Stakeholder Involvement
2.3.3 Subgroups (Working Groups)
2.3.4 Communications/Engagement of Partners

Appendix A: Persons Providing Written Comments

1.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to summarize the written comments that were received from stakeholders on the draft Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Draft Implementation Process. The Context section below explains this implementation document in more detail.

INTRODUCTION

On April 7, 1997, Canada and the United States formally signed the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (the Strategy). In keeping with the objective of the Revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18, 1987 (1987 GLWQA) to restore and protect the Great Lakes, the purpose of the Strategy is to:

Set forth a collaborative process by which Environment Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with other federal departments and agencies, Great Lakes states, the Province of Ontario, Tribes, and First Nations, will work in cooperation with their public and private partners toward the goal of virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances resulting from human activity, particularly those which bioaccumulate, from the Great Lakes Basin, so as to protect and ensure the health and integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

The signing of the Strategy represents an important milestone in Canadian and U.S. efforts to reduce toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin. The current challenge is to move forward with Strategy implementation.

CONTEXT

In May 1997, USEPA and EC sent out invitations to stakeholders to attend a one-day stakeholder meeting on June 26, 1997 in Romulus, Michigan. Those who were unable to attend the meeting were invited to submit written comments on the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Draft Implementation Process by answering questions posed in an accompanying document entitled Topics for Your Consideration Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. The stakeholder meeting discussions were structured around these topics. All these documents can be found in the proceedings of the stakeholder meeting, prepared by the LURA Group and entitled "Implementing the Binational Toxics Strategy; Stakeholders Meeting, June 26, 1997; Draft Proceedings".

The Proceedings Document captured the comments of the stakeholders on the above implementing documents. The submitted written comments reflected many of the same themes. As a result, this document will not reiterate those comments, but will only summarize those comments that differed from or augmented comments made by the stakeholder meeting participants. Therefore, the present document taken together with the LURA Group proceedings comprise the complete record of stakeholder comments, both oral and written on the Topics for Your Consideration Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy.

2.0 BREAKOUT DISCUSSIONS

2.2 REVIEW OF PRINCIPLES

2.2.1 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PRINCIPLES

Principle #1. The implementation process needs to be open, transparent and inclusive.

Written Comments:

• In general agreement with stakeholder meeting proceedings comments, with the specific comment that to be truly inclusive, important stakeholders with limited financial resources (e.g., community groups) will need financial support.

2. The implementation process needs to be practical, understandable and systematic.

Comments: • Resulting goals should be "economically practical" and not "technology forcing".
[The following is based on use of "simple" on commenter's sheet and not "systematic"; Ed.]

• Efforts can be made in the direction of simplicity, but to oversimplify would result in error; simple is not a principle, but a wish.

3. The implementation process needs to use existing programs and processes whenever possible.

Comments • In agreement with stakeholder meeting proceedings comments.

4. The implementation process needs to be consistent and coordinated with other binational and international efforts.

Comments • Only binational and international efforts to which both Canada and the U.S. have formally subscribed should be included.

5. The implementation process needs to focus on action.

Comments • In agreement with stakeholder meeting proceedings comments.

2.2.2 SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW PRINCIPLES

Comments • Adhere to existing statutory and regulatory parameters.

• Voluntary process.
• Cost-effective, consistent with a sustainable economy.
• Verifiable and quantifiable environmental quality improvement
• Fair implementation which spreads burden among all sources of PBT's.
• Emphasis on preventative strategies.
• The implementation Process needs to be more consistent with the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy with regards to recognizing that naturally occurring substances such as mercury cannot be eliminated from the Great Lakes, and that the goal should be attainment of naturally occurring levels.
• Focus on action

2.3 REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

2.3.1 STEERING TEAM

The Concept

A. What do you think of the Steering Team concept?

Comments • Do not let it obscure who is accountable for results.

• How will disputes between Team members be resolved?
• Imperative to get "right" people on it.
• Should take a strong leadership role.

B. How informal or formal should this Team be?

Comments • Structure should be at a "level" at which representatives s can make decisions for the group they are representing.

• Whatever it takes to ensure accountability for the process.
• Very formal, well organized, and focused on mission; timelines and specific goals.
• Formal, but w/ enough flexibility to allow members (e.g., ENGO's) to bring in qualified help where technical assistance is needed.
• Informal, but with a concise written record of meetings.
• Informal enough to allow it to meet and act quickly when faster action is required.

The Composition

C. Is the proposed composition appropriate? How should the membership of the Team be established--members assigned, volunteered, rotating, designated slots by sector?

Comments • Because the strategy and its implementation have nationwide implications for both US/Canada, reps from states/provinces outside the Great Lakes should also be included.

• At the state level, natural resource agencies should be included in addition to regulatory agencies.
• The mix should not be weighted toward any one interest group; need balance.
• Non-industrial trade organizations - the dentists and hospitals will be critical for mercury reductions.
• Representative by sector, with each sector designating its representative and an alternate; rotating members.
• "Observer" role for IJC?
• assigned 2 votes
• volunteers 3 votes
• rotating 2 votes
• designated slots
• EC/USEPA make initial selections based on nominations from stakeholders
• Ask for volunteers first, then assign if necessary.
• Assigned by EC/USEPA, with 2 year rotational longevity

D. Are the proposed roles and responsibilities of the Team appropriate? Are there other responsibilities that should be included?

Comments • Public outreach.

• Specific mention of responsibility for an implementation scheme.
• Need to be focused on management of program, not on doing actual work.
• Team should develop a charter before beginning implementation (a copy of the Lake Superior Binational Forum charter was attached).
• There should be no doubt that the two agencies (USEPA and EC) are accountable for achieving the requirements of the Agreement, with the Team simply providing a vehicle for helping make this happen.
• How will decisions be made and advice provided -- by individual members, sector or by Team consensus? Need a statement clarifying -- perhaps too vague.
• Industry sector has key role to play in developing and implementing actions.

E. Are there any that should not be included?

Comments • Perhaps this is not the correct group (i.e., the Team) to be doing information gathering.

• What is the desired outcome of communicating with the general public?

F. Are these roles and responsibilities clear, practical and realistic?

Comments • Change to fewer, more concisely-defined responsibilities; document needs to make clearer.

• Who is primary customer? Governments? Public? Choose one and focus on pleasing them first. You probably can't serve all of these groups effectively.

Suggested Division of Labor -- Subgroups

Do you agree with setting up subgroups? How should these groups be established?

• by substance/cluster 7 votes
• sector (chemical, political) 2
• function 1
• by challenge 7

General comments:

• No, not by substance, except for Hg/PCB's, where much work has been done
• By challenges; establish by allotting seats to stakeholder groups, who determine on own who will represent sector (e.g., labor picks labor rep, etc.).
• Probably both substance by substance and challenges
• By challenge, following a systems approach; by substance could result in other adverse environmental impacts.
• More informal than Steering Team; flexible as to membership. Do not duplicate existing efforts and programs.
• By region; Steering Team would oversee the regions for consistency across all of the Great Lakes
• Emphasize clean production as a method of pollution prevention; emphasize energy efficiency
• Possibly media (air, water, solid waste); use existing structures whenever possible.
• Chemical categories: e.g., Hg, PCBs, pesticides and chlorinated organic chemicals (dioxin, HCB, and OCS) would be four separate categories. Substance by substance ignores that some will have the same source (e.g. dioxin and HCB produced by same source); challenges would be awkward because Canada and US have different timeframes.
  • Additional subgroup, for education/outreach and for publicizing successes.

2.3.4 COMMUNICATIONS/ENGAGEMENT OF PARTNERS

Engaging Partners

A. How can effective partnerships be formed to assist in the implementation of the Strategy?

Comments • Many suggested that the Steering Team should do this.

• Operate on middle ground; everyone wants to be a partner, but they get discouraged when the "bar" is set too high or the objectives are too far left or right.
• Use regional scale for partnerships, maybe even on watershed level; a Great Lakes Basin scale would not work.
• Participants will have widely varying views and interests; people involved must be willing to rationally share these views and ideas.

B. What incentives, actions, can be provided to encourage stakeholders to begin reduction actions?

Comments • Involvement (given a chance to present ideas), grants, economic, low interest loans, awards, publicity, realistic goals and measurable results; social benefits.

• Avoidance of future regulation and/or monitoring requirements; combine both carrot and stick.
• Conventional regulations:
  • evaluate implementation of the GLI Water Quality standards in the Great Lakes States
  • reconsider the approach of limiting toxic air pollutants so that limits on toxic pollutants are based on ability to bioaccumulate once deposited
  • banning certain products/activities
• Market-based approach; incentives such as fees and trading
• Education:
  • Linking goods/services to toxics production - consumers have a role by purchasing goods that release lowest levels; US/Canadian products associated with lower levels should be preferred over foreign or domestic products that use toxics

C. How do we prioritize these actions?

Comments • Achievability. Biggest gains for the smallest investment, then modest gains for modest investment (select the most cost-effective, environmentally beneficial actions).

• Relative source sector loadings and usage and the ability to achieve significant reductions.
• By level of risk of harm to humans and the environment.
• Prioritize on basis of what actions we know must occur, with chemical lists already available and ongoing regulatory activities as guideposts.
• Minnesota mercury reduction initiative was offered as an example; it is examining a series of criteria that should be considered in choosing a mercury reduction alternative.

D. How can we make all stakeholders feel "part of the process", i.e., how do we get them involved, keep them involved?

Comments • Do not duplicate prior VE process; stakeholders need to see how this effort starts where that left off, not starts from scratch.

• Justify what needs to be done; make it meaningful and relevant.
• Establish short-term goals that can be achieved and which all parties can "boast" about; show results - start with the small and easy..
• Establish long-term goals
• Establish a "PR" program to publicize achievements of stakeholders.
• Educate people, then really listen to their suggestions/actively involve them in decisions; provide a sense of input, not just a "token" effort.
• Have meetings in local locations (not in Chicago all the time); plan and publicize meetings well in advance.

E. How can we help ensure accountability of assigned action items and follow through?

Comments • Don't think this is an issue if the person is responsible for representing a group of stakeholders.

• You can't. However, you can be a role model and demo accountability through the actions of your own agency; real accountability has to come from peer pressure - stakeholder to stakeholder.
• Through development of a formal steering team with a charter; develop and sign "commitment" or pledge sheets.
• Make hard deadlines and monitor progress, especially just after implementation.
• Education/social awareness

F. How can we acknowledge accomplishments?

Comments • Public recognition for contribution to efforts made -- impact on air and water quality; achievement awards at SOLEC, IJC Biennial Meeting, and elsewhere.

• Develop a list of knowledgeable media contacts so that good news will go to those who are most interested and capable of reporting it.
• A newsletter

Reporting/Communication

A. How frequent should meetings be?

Comments • Comments mentioned that schedule should be more frequent at beginning, with a great deal discussion about role of the Team and development of the subgroups, but less frequent later

• Six to eight weeks
• Hard to determine before starting the process; on an "as needed" basis
• Annual for Steering, semi-annual for subgroups.
• Semiannual
• No more than quarterly/ dependent on workload.
• Monthly to begin, less frequently as progress is made

B. What is the best mechanism for keeping individuals informed (internet, e-mail, mailings, etc.)?

Comments • E-mail; post documents/progress on internet

• Formal mailings allow individuals to forward info to their authorities; e-mail would be used for the working subgroups.

Keys to Success

Comments • Need a win-win situation - beneficial actions w/out impacts on operations

• A commitment to early action and results; do not let process overwhelm progress. Do not let recalcitrants delay whole project; do not wait for a long planning process to identify everything that needs to be done. Start on some of the obvious targets immediately.
• Equal representation, structure group where all comments have equal weight, place responsibility on group to discipline themselves.
• Need to eliminate finger-pointing - e.g., point source vs. non-point source.
• Visible political support for effort.
• Multi stakeholder groups that already exist for some issues (e.g., long-range transport of air pollutants -- POPs,) should be engaged for continuity and efficiency; use other existing programs and processes.
• All parties must be clear and agreeable on expectation that onus will be on industry to develop and implement action to manage substances; need trust and flexibility.
• The more grassroots stakeholders involved and recognized, the more the success.
• Suggestion to adhere to four points of Hans and Anne Marie Bleicker for successful program implementation:
  • state why problem is important (not because we signed an agreement; the reason has to do with toxicity of chemicals and health of ecosystem, including humans)
  • we have a responsibility to deal with this and if we don't, we would be irresponsible
  • deal with problem in a reasonable, responsible way
  • listen and deal with problems that will come along with the solutions

General Ideas/Suggestions

Comments • Contact California Air Resources Board - Stationary Sources (Ms. Peggy Tarrico). They have a very successful partnership program on consumer product VOC reductions.

• See Council of Great Lakes Industries Equitable Public Policy Process Document.
  • Look at IDEM's GLI Workgroup as a model.
• More important to control a substance from an entire sector than to know precisely how much comes from every facility; do not let process get bogged down in quantification, which should not drive implementation; they should develop side-by-side.
• Attention should be kept on the toxic chemicals in the strategy; reduction in conventional pollutants or less toxic chemicals are good news, but are not the objective of the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy.
• Take a hard look at ongoing sources; we know that some sources that were historically high in certain contaminants are now quite low; instead of trying to get additional reductions from these sources, attention should switch to other large sources, even if they will be more difficult to reduce.
• Government agencies should commit to full consultation and representation for their respective levels of government (same for other sectoral representatives)
• Provide additional information on how this ties in with SOLEC and IJC and other efforts.

PERSONS PROVIDING WRITTEN COMMENTS
Name Affiliation

Canadian Stakeholders

• Stewart Forbes Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention
• Hennie Veldhuizen Mining Association of Canada
• Tim Marta/Michael Presley Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
• Octavio Melo Ontario Hydro
• Judy Shaw Novartis Crop Protection
• Tiffany Svenson Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition
• Robert Taylor Health Canada/PMRA

U.S. Stakeholders

• Toni K. Allen Piper and Marbury LLP
• Richard Artz NOAA
• Bruce Bandurski IJC
• Daniel P. Bauer USGS
• David G. Berkebile Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
• Werner Braun Dow Chemical Co.
• Dave Dempsey Michigan Environmental Council
• James Downes Monsanto Company
• Tim Eder National Wildlife Federation
• Al Gephart Centerior Energy Corp.
• Robert E. Huffman NIPSCO
• Amy D. Kyle Natural Resources Defense Council
• Dennis Leonard Detroit Edison
• Rodney E. Massey, P.E. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• Joseph A. Miakisz Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
• Kay Nelson Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
• Patty O'Donnell Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
• Dr. Robert Pillsbury Sokaogon Chippewa Community
• Rob Reash American Electric Power
• Scott Sederstrom Citizens for a Better Environment
• Steve Skavroneck Pollution Prevention Partnership
• Joseph J. Stepun Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
• John H. Sullivan American Water Works Association
• David L. Thomas Waste Management and Research Center