905R89005
I X
ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING ON CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
A report to the Governors and Premiers
of the Great Lakes States and Provinces
August 1989
U S. Environmental Protection Agcnc»
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12ln floor
Chicago. IL 60604-3590
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction 1 1
II. Implementation Discussions and Recommendations 2
A. Coordinating Control of Toxic Substances Through
Permits or Other Legally Enforceable Instruments.. 2
B. List of Persistent Toxic Substances to be Controlled 3
C. Hazardous Waste Management Planning 4
D. Basin-wide Notice of Discharges 7
E. Health Effects Registries 8
F. Regional Specimen Banking Program 9
G. Exchange of Emergency Response Telephone Numbers.... 10
H. Preliminary Report on Great Lakes Protection Fund... 10
I. Initial Schedule of Workshops 11
III. Regional Actions 13
A. Air Toxics 13
B. Federal Role 13
C. Fish Consumption Advisories 15
D. Great Lakes Protection Fund 15
E. Hazardous Waste Management 16
F. Health Effects 17
G. Land Application of Sewage Treatment Plant Sludge... 17
H. Monitoring and Surveillance 18
I. Non-point Source Pollution 18
J. Public Involvement 19
K. Risk Assessment/Management 19
-------
IV. State and Provincial Actions 20
A. Illinois 21
B. Indiana 26
C. Michigan 32
D. Minnesota 41
E. New York 49
F. Ohio 56
G. Ontario 61
H. Pennsylvania 77
I. Wisconsin 89
J. Quebec 95
V. Appendices
A. Status of Committee Integration
B. List of MOU Deadlines
C. Memorandum for Coordinating control of Toxic
Substances Through Permits or Other Legally
Enforceable Instruments
D. Health Effects Task Force Recommendations
E. Common Registry Data Elements
F. Non-state/provincial Organizations That Develop or Assist
in Development of Regional Health Advisories
G. State Air Toxics Permitting Agreement
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In June of 1988, the premiers of Ontario and Quebec joined the
governors of the eight Great Lakes States in signing the
Memorandum of Understanding on Control of Toxic Substances in the
Great Lakes Environment (hereafter "MOU"). The MOU builds on the
commitment the Great Lakes governors made three years ago in
their Toxic Substances Control Agreement (TSCA) by extending
coordination of toxics reduction policy to all governmental
jurisdictions surrounding the Great Lakes. Now, all of these
jurisdictions are committed to address the problem of persistent
toxic substances which has been recognized as the "foremost
environmental issue confronting the Great Lakes".
The Great Lakes State and Provincial Environmental Administrators
(hereafter "Administrators") are the lead group responsible for
overseeing implementation of the MOU. The state and provincial
health agencies have an important implementation role as well.
The staff of the Council of Great Lakes Governors coordinate
implementation activities on behalf of the governors and
premiers.
The Administrators face a special challenge in implementing the
MOU in that the states and provinces have different institutional
frameworks and regulatory programs. The differing relationships
between the states and provinces and their respective federal
governments create an additional challenge. Still, the promise
of improved toxics management through our new cooperative
relationship makes such challenges worthwhile.
This report to the governors and premiers provides the first
annual review of the MOU as called for under that document. It
is intended that this report fulfill concomitant requirements
under the TSCA. Unless otherwise noted, the activities described
herein reflect the joint efforts of the state and provincial
Administrators.
The report is divided into three sections. The first section
outlines discussions by the Administrators regarding integration
of state and provincial activities, and provides recommendations
in accordance with specific MOU mandates and deadlines. The
second section provides an overview of regional activities
pursued collectively by the states and provinces (other than
those already described in section one), and of ongoing regional
activities of the states pursuant to the TSCA. The third section
summarizes activities undertaken individually by states and
provinces in an effort to integrate the goals of the MOU into
jurisdictional management plans.
-------
-2-
II. IMPLEMENTATION DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Over the past year, much progress has been made in implementing
the MOU. The Administrators met in November 1988 and April 1989
to establish the nature of implementation activities. They
determined that activities would be integrated in fifteen issue
areas (see Appendix A). In most cases, they agreed that joint
state/provincial committees would be created and terms of
reference developed. In some cases, provincial representatives
would monitor the activities of on-going state committees.
In accordance with MOU requirements, the Administrators have
developed reports or recommendations for the governors and
premiers in nine issue areas (see Appendix B for complete list of
MOU deadlines). Additional information is available for some of
these issues in the appendices to this report.
A. Cpordinating Control of Toxic Substances Through Permits or
Other Legally Enforceable Instruments
Clause 4 of the MOU provides that the signatory parties will:
"develop an agreement by May 31, 1989 for coordinating control
of toxic releases and achieving greater uniformity of
regulations governing such releases within the Great Lakes
Basin based on...(certain)...principles".
During the last year, the Administrators developed the attached
"Memorandum on Coordinating Control of Toxic Substances Through
Permits or Other Legally Enforceable Instruments" (see Appendix
C). This memorandum, hereafter referred to as the Permitting and
Enforceable Instruments Memorandum or "PEIM", is an expanded,
improved version of a similar document which was ratified by the
state administrators in September 1986 (pursuant to the TSCA)
entitled "Toxic Substances Management in the Great Lakes Basin
Through the Permitting Process". PEIM will be used to coordinate
ongoing TSCA activities with new state and provincial efforts to
manage toxics.
PEIM takes the first step toward coordinated regional management
of discharges, releases and emissions of toxic substances among
all of the states and provinces in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River Basin. It is important to note, however, that each state
and province will continue to operate its own toxic substance
management program in accordance with its respective administra-
tive rules and other commitments.
The goal of PEIM is development of compatible approaches to the
management of toxic substances. It is intended to create a
baseline for toxics control although the states and provinces may
impose standards which are more stringent than those agreed to in
-------
-3-
PEIM. Some highlights are included below.
0 Develop a strategy for compatible surface water permits or
other legally enforceable instruments.
° Develop recommendations for adoption of a uniform approach to
risk assessment and management as an integral part of the
regulation of toxic substances.
° Cooperate with respective federal governments in the
remediation of contaminated sediments, and in the development
of compatible national criteria for assessing the toxicity of
such sediments.
° Dredging planning and program decisions should consider
overall ecosystem concerns and alternatives to dredging
where practicable.
° Apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements
to new and existing sources of certain toxic air emissions
where possible.
° Evaluate strategies for reduction of non-point source
pollution to the Great Lakes-st. Lawrence River Basin.
° Ensure that total loadings from discharges of toxic substances
to all media do not violate aquatic environmental or health-
related standards for specific media.
B. List of Persistent Toxic Substances to be Controlled
Clause 7 (a) of the MOU provides that the signatory parties will
develop a list of persistent toxic substances which should be
controlled within each jurisdiction. In 1987, the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between the U.S. and Canada was
amended to include a listing concept which is virtually identical
in function.
The major difference between the MOU and the GLWQA is in the role
of the jurisdictions. Most notably, the jurisdictions function
in an advisory capacity under the GLWQA, but are in fact the
creators of the list under the MOU. Moreover, the MOU list is
directly associated with control programs to be developed by the
states and provinces. In view of the similarities and in order
to avoid any confusion or further complication, the Administra-
tors recommend the following to the governors and premiers:
1. that retroactive to December 31, 1988, toxic substances to
be controlled under Clause 7a of the MOU shall comprise
the eleven substances identified by the International Joint
Commission. These include: total polychlorinated biphenyls
-------
-4-
(PCBs); DDT and Metabolites; Dieldrin; Toxaphene; 2,3,7,8-
TCDF (Furan); 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin); Mirex; Mercury;
Alkylated Lead; Benzo(a)pyrene; and Hexachlorobenzene;
2. that in future modifications to the MOU list, the
Administrators shall consider both waste water effluent
and air emission monitoring/controls being implemented or
planned by the states and provinces, as well as the
proposals for revision of Agreement objectives which may be
endorsed by the Parties, state and provincial governments,
or recommended by the IJC under the Specific Objectives
Review Process of the Water Quality Agreement; and
3. that the Administrators shall annually review and if
necessary revise their lists of toxic substances and
effluent and air emission monitoring and control programs
under Clause 7 and report these to the governments.
In order to ensure full state and provincial participation in the
specific objectives review process of the GLWQA, whereby
provision is made for regular consultation by the Parties with
the state and provincial governments, the Administrators shall
seek the development of a procedure for consideration of
proposals for revision to the specific objectives of the Water
Quality Agreement.
C. Hazardous Waste Management Planning
Clause 14 of the MOU charges the jurisdictions to:
"explore the potential advantages of, and possibilities for,
interjurisdictional cooperation in hazardous waste management
planning, and to report to the Governors and Premiers on
recommendations for cooperative action by May 31, 1989".
The recent controversy over hazardous waste-tainted fuel crossing
the U.S./Canadian border for distribution and consumption in
both countries reinforces the need to implement Clause 14 of the
MOU. The controversy arose when a Toronto newspaper reported
that fuel had been adulterated with hazardous waste in the
Buffalo area, and distributed for consumption throughout Western
New York and Ontario. Related reports indicated that hazardous
waste being transported from Ontario to Texas might be destined
for illegal disposal.
During the governors' trip to Canada in May, the governors, Prime
Minister Mulroney, and Premier Peterson agreed to the need for an
investigation of the controversy, and for implementation of
appropriate measures to prevent future occurrences. In the
broader context, they also indicated an interest in examining the
-------
-5-
transport of hazardous substances and oil throughout the Great
Lakes-st. Lawrence River Basin, and in determining the state of
governmental preparedness for a possible disaster like the Valdez
incident in Prince Williams Sound, Alaska.
On July 10, 1989, the Great Lakes state and Provincial
Environmental Administrators held a workshop to:
0 examine the circumstances behind the tainted fuel shipments;
0 determine the extent of the problem;
° recommend possible solutions.
In attendance were representatives from states, provinces, U.S.
EPA, Environment Canada, and U.S. and Canadian law enforcement,
customs, and transportation agencies.
Workshop participants concluded that the overall scope of the
tainted fuel problem is unknown. Some instances of fuel
tainting have been documented but most remain unproven or the
subject of further investigations, with respect to the Ontario/
New York gasoline tainting case, the one raised during the
governors' trip to Canada, allegations regarding the illegal
disposal of PCBs in transboundary shipments of fuel have not been
proven despite the extensive efforts of law enforcement and
environmental agencies in the U.S. and Canada.
The participants determined that some action could be taken now
to address the problem. Representatives from the states,
provinces and both federal governments indicated that activities
to detect and otherwise investigate fuel tainting should become a
higher priority. To this end, more resources should be focused
on testing fuel shipments and increased emphasis should be placed
on enforcement programs. It is believed that such actions
function as a powerful deterrent to illegal tainting. In
addition, Congressional and Parliamentary action is needed to
make fuel adulteration (now a misdemeanor) a felony. The meeting
participants also identified several other options for solving
the problem, but indicated that these options should be studied
further before adoption.
The Council is currently preparing an interim report to the
governors and premiers on tainted fuel. In this report, the
Great Lakes State and Provincial Environmental Administrators,
who have assumed the lead in examining this problem, recommend
that the Great Lakes states and provinces act immediately to
focus resources on the inspection of fuel shipments if they have
not already done so. It is clear that this is the most effective
action that can be taken in the short-term to prevent fuel
tainting.
-------
-6-
The Administrators are currently reviewing the feasibility of the
workgroup's other recommendations. Recommendations will be made
to the governors and premiers as to which additional activities
should be undertaken in the short- and long-term. In addition,
meetings will be held over the next several months to examine
oil/hazardous substances transportation and spill emergency
preparedness. Final reports in both areas will be submitted to
the governors and premiers by the end of this year.
Some of the recommendations under consideration on this topic
also relate to the specific hazardous waste-related mandate
contained in the MOU. Nonetheless, the Administrators feel it
is appropriate to provide certain recommendations to the
governors and premiers at this juncture in accordance with the
MOU mandate. The recommendations noted below should be viewed in
the context of MOU requirements and not as solutions to the
tainted fuel problem.
Exchange Capacity Information - The identification of future
hazardous waste treatment and disposal capacity needs is
important to the long-term interests of industry located within
the basin. Although the jurisdictions will continue to encourage
reductions in the generation of hazardous waste, industry must
know that capacity will be available when needed.
The Administrators recommend that the jurisdictions exchange
information on hazardous waste management capacity. Pursuant to
the U.S. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), the
states are already required to assure U.S. EPA they have 20 years
of treatment or disposal capacity within their state borders or
available in other states in accordance with interstate or
regional agreements. This effort would be facilitated by an
exchange of capacity information between the states and
provinces. Moreover, such an exchange would facilitate long-term
hazardous waste management planning. The availability of such
capacity information may also function to attract as well as
maintain industry.
Exchange Procedures for Designating "Hazardous Wastes" - A waste
which is regulated as a hazardous waste in one jurisdiction may
not be considered hazardous in another. This may result from the
fact that programs to regulate certain wastes as "hazardous
wastes" are not at the same stage of development in different
jurisdictions.
The Administrators recommend that the jurisdictions exchange
state- and province-specific information on procedures for
identifying which wastes are considered hazardous as well as the
actual hazardous waste listings. The exchange of state- or
province-specific information would facilitate development of
more compatible hazardous waste designations. Such an exchange
-------
-7-
would also decrease staff time needed to evaluate proposals to
regulate certain wastes as "hazardous", and would help ensure
that generators that ship hazardous waste out of their
jurisdiction understand the implications of different regulatory
systems. Procedures for the exchange of this information are
being examined.
D. Basin-wide Notice of Discharges
Clause 6 of the MOU provides that:
"each signatory party will develop an initial list of permit,
certificate or standard information it is most interested in
receiving (from the other jurisdictions) and forward the list
to the other signatory parties by December 31, 1988.".
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that appropriate
information is forwarded to other jurisdictions whenever a state
or province considers the issuance of a permit or other legally
enforceable instrument to regulate a discharge, or intends to
create a new water quality standard, that may significantly
affect shared air or water resources.
In February 1988, state representatives met pursuant to similar
requirements under the TSCA to determine the type of information
to be exchanged. In light of the concerns raised about sharing
unnecessary permit information, the workgroup recommended that
information exchange be limited to the items listed below. This
information should be shared by a jurisdiction prior to the
issuance of a new permit or other legally enforceable instrument
or a new water quality standard, that may significantly affect
the shared water or air resources of other jurisdictions.
0 Effect of potential permit or standard in light of
degradation, anti-degradation, anti-backsliding and prevention
of significant deterioration policies;
0 Inherent effects, especially with respect to dioxin permit
limits;
0 Disposal of treatment residues, including any related
interstate transportation; and
° Wasteload allocations.
The state Administrators concurred in these recommendations. In
December 1988, the Provincial Administrators agreed to
participate in the exchange of information identified above. In
addition, the Administrator from Ontario indicated an interest in
receiving the information noted on the following page.
-------
-8-
0 Lists of persistent toxic substances being monitored and for
which objectives or guidelines are under development.
0 Major waste discharges.
° Recent or proposed changes in water quality standards,
objectives or criteria.
The states and provinces will meet in October 1989 to revisit the
above-listed information exchange parameters.
E. Health Effects Registries
Clause 24 of the MOU charges the state and provincial health
administrators to:
"study and report on the status of health effects registries
in the Great Lakes Region and recommend additional initiatives
that should be undertaken in this area...(and submit their
report)...by May 31, 1989.".
On April 26, 1989, the state and provincial Health Effects Task
Force met to examine the compatibility of health effects
registries in the jurisdictions, and to develop initial
recommendations for improving these registries (see Appendix D
for detailed recommendations). It was determined that numerous
data elements were already common to all state and provincial
death, birth and cancer registries (see Appendix E).
The state and provincial health administrators recommend that the
following initiatives be undertaken:
0 Standardize the collection and management of health data;
0 Conduct intra-basin and inter-regional studies to determine
the health effects, if any, of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
Basin water quality;
0 Compare trends in water quality with trends in health effects;
0 Conduct additional health effects studies when adequate
environmental exposure data are available;
0 Identify non-state/provincial organizations that develop or
assist in the development of regional health advisories (see
Appendix F for initial list); and
0 Identify roles of specific units within state and provincial
governments as related to human health.
-------
-9-
F. Regional Specimen Banking Program
Clause 20(a) of the MOU charges the Great Lakes states and
Provinces to:
"study tissue specimen banking programs in the Great Lakes
Basin and recommend steps that can be taken to improve
them...by May 31, 1989. Consideration shall be given to
development of a regional program for the banking and
preservation of flesh specimens from fish, birds and
other wildlife to provide continuity in data comparisons
by allowing analysts to compare older samples to newer
ones".
A similar mandate contained in the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (Annex 12:5e) requires "maintenance of a biological
tissue bank and sediment bank to permit retroactive analysis to
establish trends over time". For several years, the
International Joint Commission (IJC), which is responsible for
overseeing implementation of the Agreement, has acted as the lead
regional organization relative to the specimen banking issue.
During February 1988, IJC staff sponsored a workshop on specimen
banking. Representatives from some of the Great Lakes States and
Provinces participated in this workshop. The purpose of the
workshop was to discuss the status of existing specimen banks and
the possible establishment of a regional bank.
The workgroup concluded that several excellent specimen banking
programs exist in both countries at this time; however, the Great
Lakes region currently does not have a comprehensive bi-national
facility. It was believed that such a facility is feasible but
would require a significant ongoing financial investment. The
participants recommended subsidizing existing programs rather
than establishing a bi-national regional facility. The
participants also made some progress on technical issues
concerning specimen banking storage but additional efforts were
deemed necessary.
Subsequent to the IJC workshop, staff from the Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency assumed the lead on specimen banking on behalf
of the IJC. GLNPO staff have been pursuing the idea of creating
a regional specimen bank, and have recently (April 1989)
developed plans to this effect.
GLNPO's plans are currently under review by the Administrators,
and a recommendation will be made following the review. In this
review, serious consideration will be given to the cost of
establishing and maintaining such a regional specimen bank.
-------
-10-
G. Exchange of Emergency Response Telephony
Clause 10 of the MOU provides that:
"each jurisdiction shall forward to the other signatory parties
by December 31, 1988 the 24-hour telephone number of the
emergency response unit to be contacted...(when)...an
accidental discharge occurs.".
The purpose of this provision is to ensure the states and
provinces have immediate access to emergency response authorities
in the event of an accidental discharge which would significantly
affect shared air or water resources. The state/provincial
emergency response telephone numbers are listed below.
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
217/782-3637
317/241-4336
517/337-6100
612/296-7282
518/457-7362 (outside state)
800/457-7362 (inside state)
Ohio
Ontario
Pennsylvania
Quebec
Wisconsin
614/481-4300
800/268-6060
717/787-4343 (Harrisburg)
814/724-8557 (Meadville)
514/873-3454
608/266-3232
H. Preliminary Report on the Great Lakes Protection Fund
Clause 25 of the MOU provides that jurisdictions will:
"examine alternative long-term funding sources that will
permit continued progress toward a healthier Great Lakes
ecosystem. The Center for the Great Lakes has agreed to
assist the signatory parties by conducting a feasibility
study on the creation of a regional, long-term funding
mechanism. The center will report back to the signatory
-------
-11-
parties on the goals and objectives, fvoidable activities,
sources of revenue and management structure necessary for
such a fund. A preliminary report will be submitted by
December 31, 1988.".
Pursuant to a similar requirement under the TSCA, the Center for
the Great Lakes in December 1987 presented a feasibility study to
the governors on a state Great Lakes Protection Fund. The fund's
potential goals and objectives outlined in that feasibility study
included:
° Acceleration of research into the economic and environmental
effects of toxic contamination in the Great Lakes;
0 Establishment of additional monitoring mechanisms;
° Identification of innovative methods for reducing toxic
pollution at its source; and
° Increasing public understanding of the importance of improving
Great Lakes water quality.
An agreement was signed by the Great Lakes governors to create
the Great Lakes Protection Fund in February 1989.
In June, 1989, the Center assembled a steering committee to guide
work on development of provincial companion initiatives to the
states' Fund. The Center has begun to research existing public
and private funds which may serve as potential models for a
provincial funding arrangement comparable to the Great Lakes
Protection Fund. In addition, the Center participated in
workshops with Great Lakes researchers and industry
representatives in order to learn their views on potential roles
for a provincial fund.
I. Initial Schedule of Workshops
Clause 21 of the MOU provides for the preparation of an initial
list of workshops for information exchange and other purposes by
December 31, 1988. This list is provided below.
Issue Area Schedule
Air Toxics November 1989
Biomonitoring June 1989
October 1989
Surface Water Permit Compatibility June 1989
October 1989
Compliance January 1990
-------
-12-
Control Programs for Persistent Toxics October 1989
Cross-media Effects October 1989
Fish Consumption Advisories July 1989
November 1989
Ground Water Quality December 1989
Hazardous Waste Management July 1989
Health Effects Registries April 1989
November 1989
Monitoring and Surveillance December 1989
Non-point Source Pollution November 1989
Risk Assessment/Management November 1988
December 1989
Specimen Banking November 1989
-------
-13-
III. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
A. Air Toxics
Clause 16 of the MOU provides that the states and provinces will:
"consider the effects of airborne pollutants on human health
and aquatic life when setting air emission standards and
granting air permits or other legally enforceable instruments".
The state Administrators' most significant accomplishment this
past year was finalization of an agreement requiring application
of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for new and existing
sources of certain air toxics (see Appendix G). It is
anticipated that this agreement will help control the
introduction of air toxics into the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River Basin through the uniform and consistent issuance of
permits requiring BACT. In an effort to ensure uniformity, a
workgroup is currently identifying BACT for individual source
categories. States which do not currently have legal authority
to require the installation of BACT will attempt to obtain such
authority.
The state Administrators also agreed to develop a computerized
air toxics data base for the purpose of obtaining knowledge about
air toxics sources and their migratory nature. Funding for
developing this data base is now being sought.
The provincial Administrators are interested in exploring options
for extending the air toxics control agreement and data base to
Ontario and Quebec.
B. Federal Role
"The Great Lakes States should use their influence through
coordinated efforts to help shape federal policies and
legislation related to toxic substances...Ontario and Quebec
recognize the respective roles of the provincial and federal
governments in Canada...and agree to seek to cooperate with
each other in accord with the constitutional responsibilities
entrusted to each level of government as they pertain to the
control of toxic substances."
During the past year the state Administrators took collective
action on several U.S. federal issues with Great Lakes regional
impacts. Concerned about the potential impacts of air toxics on
the region, the state Administrators developed recommendations
for U.S. federal legislation which would help protect human
health and the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem.
-------
-14-
Although the states are implementing a regional agreement which
requires installation of Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) on new and existing sources of certain air toxics, control
within the region may not be enough because the persistent toxics
threatening the Great Lakes are not confined to the region.
Their sources and impacts are evident throughout the United
States and beyond.
Three air toxics bills have been introduced thus far in the 101st
Congress. While these bills would result in important reductions
in air toxics, both bills could do more to protect against the
persistence and bioaccumulatipn of toxics in aquatic ecosystems.
In particular, state Administrators recommend that risk to
aquatic ecosystems should be factored into the development of
control standards for point and area sources of air toxics.
Also, consideration should be given to aquatic ecosystem impacts
in the establishment of threshold regulatory levels for all
sources of air toxics.
The state Administrators have also developed recommendations
concerning the Clean Water Act, which is scheduled for
reauthorization in 1990. The states are particularly concerned
about the lack of flexibility in U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) regulatory policy relative to Clean Water Act
implementation.
Through the Council of Great Lakes Governors, and in cooperation
with other regional environmental organizations, the states have
urged Congress to continue or increase funding for Great Lakes
clean-up, research and resources management activities. This
action helped to ensure an increase in congressional
appropriations for U.S. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office
(GLNPO) during FY89.
In May 1989, the state Administrators agreed to serve on GLNPO's
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Policy Committee.
This committee will bring together representatives from state
agencies, U.S. federal agencies and regional public interest
groups to discuss matters relevant to the semiannual meetings of
the Parties to the GLWQA. It will also provide a forum for
coordinating GLWQA activities with activities conducted pursuant
to the TSCA.
The state Administrators also agreed to work with U.S. EPA
regional offices to incorporate provisions of the GLWQA into
implementation of the U.S. Clean Water Act. Thus far, three
priorities have been identified: establishment of specific water
quality objectives; incorporation of the specific objectives in
regulatory activities of the Great Lakes states; and public
participation in the implementation of the GLWQA.
-------
-15-
C. Fish Consumption Advisories
Clauses 22 and 23 of the MOU provide that the signatory parties
will:
"seek an interjurisdictional agreement for each of the lakes
on common fish advisories...(and)...cooperate in other Basin-
wide initiatives, such as...(efforts)...to standardize sampling
procedures.and fish tumor identification.".
For the third consecutive year, roost jurisdictions within the
Great Lakes Basin will have uniform fish consumption advisories
for Lakes Erie, Michigan, and St. Clair. Uniformity in the
issuance of such advisories is important because it reduces
angler confusion regarding the types and amounts of fish that
should be consumed.
Over the past year, the states began a new initiative which will
compare the level of contaminants in sport fish and commercially-
purchased fish. If funding is obtained, this project will assist
anglers in comprehending the degree of added risk they assume by
consuming sport fish.
In July 1989, the Fish Consumption Advisory Task Force held a
workshop to redefine its goals (in light of the integration of
provincial representatives) and to establish deadlines for
achieving common fish consumption advisories. The task force
will meet again in November.
D. Great Lakes Protection Fund
Clause 25 of the MOU provides that jurisdictions will:
"examine alternative long-term funding sources that will
permit continued progress toward a healthier Great Lakes
ecosystem".
The need for a stable and predictable source of funding to
safeguard past water quality accomplishments and underwrite new
initiatives was first identified in the TSCA. Recognizing that
public sector funding (both state and federal) is subject to the
fluctuations of the political environment, the TSCA envisioned
that the creation of a regional environmental endowment would
provide a permanent source of revenue for the types of long-term
projects needed to address toxic contamination.
This first-of-a-kind endowment will represent an unprecedented
regional commitment to protect the Great Lakes for future
generations. Creating a permanent funding mechanism helps ensure
-------
-16-
continuous development of needed scientific information and new
cleanup technologies to safeguard the environmental, human and
economic health of the basin. Taking a regional approach to the
threat of toxic contamination can provide new direction and
leadership, and offer broader insight into shared pollution
problems.
On February 26, 1989, the Great Lakes governors signed a unique
environmental agreement to create the Great Lakes Protection
Fund, a $100 million endowment that will set a new standard for
aggressive and effective regional action to combat toxic
pollution in the Great Lakes. This signing culminated a two-year
effort to develop the concept of, and governance structure for,
the Fund. The states are now involved in securing legislative
approval for their individual contributions. Each of the states
will contribute to the Fund based on its Great Lakes water usage.
The Fund may also seek donations from corporations and
individuals, and settlements from environmental litigation.
A gubernatorially-appointed board will oversee the Fund, and
award grants that advance the goals of the TSCA and Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. Once fully operational, it is hoped
that $7-10 million in annual interest earnings will be available
for these projects. Two-thirds of the annual earnings will be
used for making regional grants while one-third will be returned
to the states for use in implementing the TSCA and GLWQA. It is
anticipated that grants can be awarded by 1990.
As noted in Section I, the Center for the Great Lakes is
currently consulting with provincial representatives to identify
options for establishing a parallel fund in Canada which would
coordinate it activities with the states' fund.
E. hazardous Waste Management
Clause 14 of the MOU provides that:
"explore the potential advantages of, and possibilities for,
interjurisdictional cooperation in hazardous waste management
planning".
During the fall of 1988, the state Administrators were concerned
about draft U.S. EPA requirements concerning hazardous waste
management capacity. As a result, joint comments were submitted
to the National Governors' Association which was responsible for
soliciting comments on behalf of U.S. EPA.
The draft requirements, which were designed to implement
provisions of the U.S. federal Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986, would have mandated states to
demonstrate that adequate hazardous waste management capacity
-------
-17-
would be available for the next twenty years. The states'
comments noted that the level of effort necessary to fulfill the
proposed requirements far exceeded that envisioned by Congress.
In addition, the states expressed concern about the proposed
definition of a capacity "shortfall".
As noted in Section II of this report, the states and provinces
jointly developed recommendations concerning hazardous waste
management planning, and are developing additional
recommendations with respect to the hazardous waste-tainted fuel
problem.
F. Health Effects Reaistrj.es
Clause 24 of the MOU charges the state and provincial health
administrators to:
"study and report on the status of health effects registries
in the Great Lakes Region and recommend additional initiatives
that should be undertaken in this area".
The Health Effects Task Force, which is responsible for
implementing Clause 24 of the MOU, met in October 1988 and April
1989 to continue its efforts regarding development of consistent
health effects registries. Provincial representatives
participated in the latter meeting. As noted in Section II of
this report, the Task Force developed recommendations for
improvements in the state and provincial registries, and for the
preparation of health-based studies in the region.
The Task Force is also designing a study that would examine
health effects within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin as
compared to health effects in other regions of both countries.
Part of this effort entails an examination of researcher access
to mortality and morbidity records.
The Task Force will continue to examine the role of public health
in environmental control efforts, and to work with other
organizations, such as the International Joint Commission's
Health Committee, to coordinate activities and avoid program
duplication.
G. Land Application of Sewage Treatment Plant Sludae
The Great Lakes states' Toxic Substances Permitting Agreement
provides for development of consistent standards and management
approaches for the land application of sludge resulting from
sewage treatment plants. In 1987, the states determined that
land application standards were already consistent and that
-------
-18-
development of a consistent basin-wide approach was not needed.
In 1988, when U.S. EPA proposed federal land application
requirements, a state workgroup developed comments on behalf of
the Great Lakes governors. The comments suggested that EPA's
role should be that of facilitation, technical ' and financial
assistance, research support and information dissemination. In
addition, it was suggested that the proposed requirements would
decrease the effectiveness of state programs, and hinder rather
than encourage the beneficial use of sewage treatment plant
sludge.
H. Monitoring and Surveillance
Clauses 20(a) and (e) of the MOU charge the Great Lakes states
and Provinces to:
"study tissue specimen banking programs in the Great Lakes
Basin and recommend steps that can be taken to improve
them...(and)...support the International Joint Commission's
Water Quality Board in the development of a system of waste
water discharge quality benchmarks to help facilitate
comparisons among the Great Lakes jurisdictions...(of
reductions in the)...levels of toxicity from specific point
sources11.
As noted in Section II of this report, the states and provinces
are currently reviewing a draft IJC proposal concerning
development of a regional specimen bank. During the spring of
1988, the state Administrators contacted IJC representatives to
determine the status of efforts to develop waste water discharge
quality benchmarks, and to encourage progress in this area. In
response, an IJC representative indicated that such benchmarks,
upon initial examination, were found to be difficult to define
and were thought to be unworkable. However, it was also
suggested that discussions pertaining to such benchmarks may now
be in order in light of the recent reaffirmation of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The states will continue to
examine the feasibility of these benchmarks in the coming year.
I. Non-point Source Pollution
The Memorandum for Coordinating Control of Toxic Substances
Through Permits or Other Legally Enforceable Instruments which
was developed by the Administrators (see Appendix C) provides
that the states and provinces will evaluate jurisdictional
strategies for the reduction of nonpoint source pollution to the
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin. Urban and rural nonpoint
sources of contamination can contribute major quantities of water
pollutants.
-------
-19-
During the spring of 1989, a survey of existing state non-point
source control programs was compiled. A meeting will be held in
November 1989 to develop recommendations for improving existing
programs. The provinces will participate in this meeting as
appropriate.
J. Public Involvement
Clause 26 of the MOU provides for citizen involvement in the
implementation of the agreement. similar requirements are
contained in the TSCA. During July 1988, the state
administrators held their first meeting to solicit public
comments on implementation of the TSCA. The accomplishments of
the past two years and the planned activities for the next 12-18
months were discussed. Representatives from several
environmental groups indicated a desire to receive more
information about implementation activities and to have more
opportunities for participation in such activities.
K. Risk Assessment/Management
The Memorandum for Coordinating Control of Toxic Substances
Through Permits or Other Legally Enforceable Instruments
contained in Appendix C of this report provides that the states
and provinces will develop recommendations for adoption of a
uniform approach to risk assessment and management as an
integral part of the regulation of toxic substances. During
December of 1988, the states met to survey risk assessment
assumptions within the region, and to work toward development of
a range of compatible assumptions. Environmental and health
agency representatives were in attendance. During the coming
year, the survey will be extended to the provinces. In addition,
discussions regarding compatible risk assessment/management
discussions will continue.
-------
-20-
IV. STATE AND PROVINCIAL ACTIONS
-------
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency • P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL 62794-9276
ANNUAL REPORT (88/89)
IMPLEMENTATION OF GREAT LAKES TSCA
ILLINOIS EPA
Federal Role in Regulating Toxic Substances
• National Policy Arena - Illinois continued to be active through partici-
pation in the NGA, various executive branch organizations (ASIWPCA, STAPPA,
ASTWMO, ASDWA, etc.), and other groups. In particular, extensive effort
was focused upon policy guidelines for clean air legislation, hazardous
waste management, and federal/state cleanup programs.
• Section 313 of Title-Ill, SARA - While this community right-to-know
information is primarily a federal requirement, legislation was enacted
in 1987 in Illinois to also make the submittal of such information a
requirement of State law. In addition, the IEPA is mandated to develop
and maintain in a computer data base an Illinois Toxic Chemical Inventory.
In February, 1989, the IEPA published the "First Annual Toxic Chemical
Report." This report summarized the 1987 data from 938 facilities in
Illinois. A total of 433,096,467 pounds of toxic chemicals were released
from these facilities in 1987. These facilities reported that 152 toxic
chemicals and compounds were released. Multiple uses are envisioned for
this toxics information. For example, the data for air emissions has
been used extensively for development of the air toxics control program
in Illinois.
The IEPA has also received a new federal grant ($45,000) from the USEPA
to enhance our Section 313 data management program for the 1988 reporting
year. In particular, we hope to improve the quality of the data which
is prepared and reported by the facilities.
Clean Water
• Funding Assistance for Wastewater Facilities - The Illinois General Assembly
adopted legislation in 1988 which provides $370 million for wastewater
facilities via grants and loans. Of this total funding package, $300
million is to be used for 70% grants for compliance projects and $70 million
is to be used as match funds to obtain about $350 million in federal
capitalization grants under the Clean Water Act. As part of this
legislative initiative, the substantive provisions needed to establish
and operate a water pollution control revolving loan fund were also adopted.
The IEPA recently finalized the regulations for the new loan program and
filed for a capitalization grant with the USEPA.
21
-------
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency • P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL 62794-9276
• New Regulations for Toxics Control - The IEPA has submitted .to the Pollution
Control Board comprehensive revisions of the water pollution control
regulations. These revisions provide for strengthening and modernizing
of the regulations and policies by which toxic substances are controlled
in surface waters, including both the provisions for numerical and narrative
standards. Biomonitoring and toxicity assessment are especially emphasized
as part of these revisions. The rulemaking process is well underway and
is expected to continue for some time.
• Groundwater Protection - The Groundwater Protection Act of 1987 is being
implemented.Highlights of these efforts are as follows:
1. Coordination - The Interagency Coordinating Committee on Groundwater
has continued to meet on a bimonthly basis. In addition, the Groundwater
Advisory Council has been very active in reviewing various outputs
from the Committee.
2. Wellhead protection - Minimum setback restrictions (200 or 400 feet)
are in place for some 3,390 community water supply wells. Rules are
final for obtaining maximum setbacks (up to 1,000 feet) for community
wells. Well site surveys have been completed by the IEPA for many
community wells.
3. Technology regulations - Proposed regulations have been filed with
the Pollution Control Board. The rulemaking process is underway and
should be finished by late in 1989. When adopted, these regulations
will provide additional protection by requiring new controls for certain
types of activities near wellheads.
4. Groundwater quality standards - Development of the regulations for
such standards has been progressing well. The target for submittal
to the Pollution Control Board is July or August, 1989.
5. Recharge area mapping - Maps have been completed and submitted to the
IEPA.
Permitting Process
* Surface Waters - Through the NPDES permit program, the IEPA continued
to expand toxics control requirements. In particular, biomonitoring was
utilized to detect toxicity in wastewaters. The IEPA continued to operate
both central and mobile labs for aquatic bioassay. During 1989, emphasis
has been placed upon scale-up of certain genetic toxicity testing.
• Air Quality - The IEPA continued to develop a toxics emissions inventory
via a case-by-case review of source permits as each comes due for
reissuance. To a more limited extent, additional control requirements
have been imposed via the permit reissuance process.
22
-------
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency • P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL 62794-9276
A new air toxics control program is also under development pursuant to
legislation which was adopted in 1987. The IEPA is mandated to develop
and submit a listing of air toxics to the Pollution Control Board. A
special discussion paper has been recently prepared and distributed to
present various options for a listing of toxic air pollutants. At a later
time, the IEPA is required to submit a proposed control program(s) for
the specified listing of air toxics.
• Multimedia Concerns - Facilities that require permits from more than one
media program are subject to a process called the "Coordinated Review
of Permits (CROPA)." Regularly scheduled meetings among the Agency's
permit managers and a scheduling and accountability system help insure
consistency among permits prepared by different divisions. The process
has proven so effective that it serves as a review panel for "how clean
is clean" decisions at cleanup sites. A cleanup objectives team, utiliz-
ing expertise from all areas of the Agency, formulates recommendations
for CROPA. Their review as permit writers, whose job it is to apply generic
standards to specific cases, has again insured a level of consistency
in a very difficult and ambiguous area of operation.
Field operations are coordinated for multimedia concerns in several ways.
First, regional coordinators are designated for each of the seven major
regional offices. The regional coordinators have special assignments
to manage multimedia inspections and enforcement cases. Second, the
managers at headquarters for field operations meet on a regular basis
to coordinate implementation activities.
Enforcement activities are coordinated using a matrix management system
for the legal staff at the Agency. A senior manager (lawyer) is in charge
of all the legal staff who are, in turn, organized on a media basis.
Within each media legal group, the staff report to both the senior legal
manager and the respective senior media program manager.
• Office of Chemical Safety (PCS) - Over the past five years, the IEPA has
developed a team of toxicologists and industrial hygienists to provide
specialized technical assistance for the operating programs. This support
has been especially useful in coping with case-specific analysis of the
effects of toxic chemicals. The role of the OCS has continued to grow,
as well, due to the codification of federal and state requirements for
formal safety programs for regulatory staff.
Hazardous Waste Management
• HSWA Authority - The IEPA has applied to the USEPA for the authority to
handle the second generation of RCRA requirements. We expect the USEPA
to act on this submission before the end of 1989.
23
-------
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency • P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL 62794-9276
• Solid Haste Management - The State is close to filing a legal settlement
in the long pending lawsuit over the act adopted in 1986. The adoption
of major amendments to the original law helped open the way for final
resolution of this case. In the meantime, some progress has been made
using a portion of the tipping fees which was not encumbered by the law-
suit. The IEPA has awarded 19 grants to local governments for solid waste
planning. The State's funding commitment for these grants exceeds $2.3
million. More activities are planned for FY 90 when the revenue from
the new landfill fees is expected to reach $16.0 million.
• Waste Collection Programs - During the fall of 1988, the IEPA funded a
contractor to do three pilot collection projects for household hazardous
waste. A total of 215 drums of waste were collected and disposed at a
total cost of about $133,000. On the average, the direct cost of collection
and disposal was $1.38 per pound of waste. The IEPA has prepared a special
report regarding the feasibility of continuing this collection activity.
In this report, we conclude that this activity should continue for, at
least, another three years at about an annual cost of $500,000.
Accidental Release of Pollutants
• Emergency Incidents - During 1988, the IEPA received 1761 notifications
of emergency releases. This number was the highest incidence rate yet
recorded on an annual basis. We attribute this record to the effects
'of the new Title III, SARA requirements and to the reporting provisions
for leaking underground tanks. Some 827 of these incidents took place
in the four counties nearest to Lake Michigan. Impacts on the general
public included evacuation of 2,388 persons and hospitalization of 866
persons.
• Emergency Planning - The IEPA has continued to implement the provisions
of the Illinois Chemical Safety Act. During 1988, eight releases were
designated as "significant" which triggered a special review of the contin-
gency plans for each facility. In addition, the IEPA has initiated the
use of detailed hazard and operability studies (HAZOPS) as part of the
enforcement settlement conditions for facilities with especially poor
track records.
Information Exchange
Illinois served as the host state for the second risk assessment workshop
which was held on December 7 and 8, 1988. The IEPA also participated in
the other workshops sponsored by the Council.
24
-------
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Human Exposure and Health Effects Assessment
The Department of Public Health operates a Health and Hazardous Substances
Registry in Illinois. As part of this effort, cancer incidence reporting
is underway on a statewide basis. Adverse pregnancy outcomes are also being
reported on a limited basis. The registry is also designed to eventually
address data for occupational diseases and hazardous substances in Illinois.
The data from the Form Rs (Section 313, Title III) may become the principal
focus of this later registry.
RAKrljl/4-14
25
-------
26
Annual Report
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Implementation of the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement
May, 1988 to May, 1989
I. Introduction
In 1989, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
continued programs and activities to implement the provisions of the Great
Lake Toxic Substances Control Agreement. This report provides a brief summary
of those activities and notes actions of the 1989 Indiana General Assembly
which address Great Lakes Toxic issues. A major focus is provided by the
Northwest Indiana Environmental Action Plan, which provides for a
comprehensive review and remedial action in this region, where for a century
the environment has felt the effects of heavy industrial activity and past
disposal practices. Components of the plan include:
1. A master plan for addressing water-related problems along the
Grand Calumet River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
2. A remedial action plan for the Indiana Harbor/Lake Michigan
near-shore area.
3. State implementation plans for achievement of Air Quality
Standards in Northwest Indiana.
-------
27
completed; currently the department has 18 closure plans "in-house" under
review. The legislature mandated the Indiana Environmental Policy Commission
to make a comprehensive study of hazardous waste issues and issue their report
in time for legislative activity in the 1990 session.
IV. Atmospheric Deposition
Atmospheric Deposition is now recognized as a major source of pollution
within the Great Lakes. IDEM has continued it's air monitoring program and is
also investigating sources and quantities of air toxics. It is the agency's
intention to take a draft rule for the control of certain air toxics to the
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board in 1989. The state is participating in
U.S. EPA's developement of a (court ordered) Federal Implementation Plan for
ozone dealing with the entire Chicago metropolitan area. A new control
strategy for PM10 is scheduled for consideration by the air pollution control
board late in 1989. A preliminary adopted sulfur dioxide rule mentioned in
the 1988 report was made final by the Air Board in July of 1988 and received
federal approval in December, 1988.
V. Air Toxics
In light of the Great Lakes Governors Toxic Control Agreement and
resulting agreements of the Great Lakes and environmental administrators and
increasing evidence of a high level of contaminants reaching the Great Lakes
via air transport, Indiana has acted to implement the Directives by creating
an inventory of air toxics that are of aquatic concern and by establishing
permit review procedures that will assess and Mitigate the impact of toxic air
-------
28
completion expected in 1989, copies of the report, when complete, will be
available at Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of
External Affairs, 105 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
Groundwater protection in Indiana received a boost when the Indiana
Legislature adopted a comprehensive groundwater protection act. The new law
mandates well head protection zones for municipal well fields, creates a
groundwater contamination registry within the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management, provides for the investigation of suspect wells, and
mandates the adoption of standards for groundwater quality.
Monitoring and Surveillance:
Sediment sampling, Fish sampling, and Macroinvertebrate sampling programs
were carried out in 1988, as were fixed station ambulate monitoring and
compliance inspection sampling. In addition, 24-hour composite samples of the
water column were taken at ten sites in the Grand Calument River and the
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. The samples are being analysed for priority
pollutants.
III. Hazardous Waste Management
There are nearly one hundred and fifty (150) solid and hazardous waste
handlers located in northwest Indiana with a potential for impacting the water
quality of Lake Michigan. In 1988 59 inspections of these facilities were
carried out resulting in 30 enforcement actions. These enforcement actions
are being pursued through consent degrees, agreed orders and referrals to the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency. In 1988 6 closure plans were
-------
29
4. Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) for specific
cleanup activities at specified sites.
5. Facility management plans under the Resource, Conservation, and
Recovery Act.
Copies of the Northwest Indiana Environmental Action Plan are available from
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of External Affairs,
105 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
II. Water Related Activities
The water quality standards mentioned in the 1988 report as preliminary
adopted have since been withdrawn, modified and re-preliminarly adopted.
Water quality standards for Lake Michigan, the Grand Calumet River and
Salmonid Streams are all incorporated into the basic water quality standards.
Legislative proposals were introduced in the 1989 session which included
1.) Extension of the length of variances to allow for a rule that could be
administered more reasonably; 2.) A requirement to evaluate and determine the
use designation of all waters of the state. No legislation was passed,
however, and since public hearings have been concluded, the water quality
standards could be brought back to the board for final adoption in the next
several months.
The study being conducted by Indiana University northwest Environmental
Research to characterize sediments in the Indiana Habor Canal continues with
-------
30
deposition in the Great Lakes. Substances of most concern in the Great Lakes
are alkylated lead compounds, benzo-a-pyrene, hexachlorobenzene, mercury,
total polychlorinated biphenyl, 2,3,7,8,tetrach1orobenzo-p-dioxin and
2,3,7,8,tetrachlorodibenzofuran.
In addition to those compounds of special concern to the Great Lakes,
Indiana has begun to identify and quantify health impacts from a number of
other hazardous air pollutants. In addition to pollutants regulated under
existing federal law, Indiana is focusing on a list of twenty-nine (29) air
toxics. For the twenty-nine (29) compounds we have a data base which includes
draft Acceptable Ambient Concentrations (AAC) for each compound. The AAC is
based on the short term eight hour Time Waited Average (TWA) threshold limit
value developed by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygenists (with the safety factor) to convert to less healthy populations.
The AAC for carcinogens is an annual concentration based on the unit risk
factor developed by EPA's Cancer Assessment Group which assumes zero (0)
threshold and linear concentration effects. The twenty-nine (29) compounds
were selected based on data from a survey performed in 1984, and review of
source information existing at that time. The program will be expanded in the
future as the data base grows from other available sources of information
including data now being collected as a result of the requirements of section
313 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthourization Act (SARA).
VI. Site Cleanup Activities
Indiana's portion of the Great Lakes drainage basin has been the scene of
intensive industrial activity for nearly a century. There are now over 200
r • . . . . i- - r-r.rvi T<- i-fc-t- ,.,i'4-hin the ha<; 1 n. CuTentlv there are seven
-------
31
Super-fund sites, and three "State-initiated" cleanup sites being actively
addressed. One site is in remedial design stage, three are in feasibility
study, one is in remedial investigations/feasibility study and two are in
remedial investigation. There have been several planned removals of hazardous
material from sites. Due to the large number of sites, considerable resources
and time will be needed to address the problem.
VII. Indiana Legislature
In addition to the groundwater legislation mentioned previously, the
legislature took several other actions which will affect toxics in the Great
Lakes Drainage Basin. Used oil was banned as a dust suppresent on roads and
parking lots. A provision to allow the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management to enter into "mixed funding" agreements will expedite some site
cleanups, where a reluctant "responsible party" could stall activity. IDEM
can now elect to provide this share of funding of this "reluctant party," and
recover it's cost later through a separate court action. The legislature also
provided an increase in funding of $6.2 million for the biennium budget for
Federal, State and voluntary cleanups. Finally, transfers of commercial
property are now subject to disclosure of contamination, if the property is on
the CERCLIS list, has/had underground storage tanks, or is/was a SARA Section
313 reporting entity. Additional information on these issues is available
from Indiana Department of Environmental Management Office of External
Affairs, 105 S. Meridian Street, Indianapolis, IN 46206.
-------
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Implementation of the Great Lakes
Toxic Substances Control Agreement
July 1989
Federal Role in Regulating Toxic
The key to effective implementation of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement is the development of uniform water quality
standards, based on water quality criteria for protecting human
health, aquatic life and wildlife. In addition, the following
areas need to be addressed: mixing zones/zones of initial
dilution, procedures for establishing water quality-based effluent
limits in permits, antidegradation, biomonitoring requirements,
pollution prevention, use designations and variances from meeting
water quality standards.
The water quality criteria will represent means of measuring use
attainment in the Great Lakes and assuring that designated uses
are fully protected. Achievement of these criteria, however, is
only an interim step. Over the long term, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the states will seek to minimize
loadings of toxic substances, particularly persistent,
bioaccumulative pollutants, with the goal of virtual elimination.
To accomplish this goal, technology-based requirements and
enhanced antidegradation policies will be used to prevent
pollution. Specific pollution prevention proposals for reaching
this goal will be developed concurrently with developing the other
elements of the water quality standards.
Much of the initial development of the guidance will be done by
U.S. EPA, using existing federal criteria and state water quality
standards as a starting point. U.S. EPA envisions three groups
directly involved in this Great Lakes initiative: a steering
committee, a technical work group, and a public participation
group. The steering committee will make decisions regarding key
issues raised by the technical work group and the public
participation group. This committee will be comprised of Water
Division Directors from Regions II, III, and V; Water Program
Directors from the eight Great Lakes states; a representative of
the Indian tribes in the Basin; and the Director of the Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO).
The technical work group will assist in the development of the
specific water quality proposals and will forward technical
recommendations to the steering committee. It is anticipated that
this work group will be a state/federal committee, comprised of
representatives from each of the Great Lakes states, along with
representatives from GLNPO, Regions II, III and V, and
Headquarters.
32
-------
The public participation group will interact with both the
technical work group and the steering committee. U.S. EPA
anticipates that the public participation group will elect (a)
chairperson(s) who will solicit comments from members of the
public participation group and coordinate interactions with the
technical work group and steering committee. The chairperson(s)
will be invited to observe decision-making sessions of the
steering committee. The views of the public participation group
will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the decisions made by
the steering committee. U.S. EPA anticipates a broad base of
representation on the public participation group, including
individuals from environmental groups and associations
representing industries and municipalities.
It is expected that U.S. EPA will complete the Great Lakes water
quality guidance in time to impact the 1991 to 1993 triennial
state water quality standards review process. The specific
schedule for developing the guidance will be developed as part of
a work plan developed by the technical work group and approved by
the steering committee. The Steering committee will consider the
feasibility of meeting U.S. EPA's proposed deadline.
A major goal of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is
the virtual elimination and zero discharge of persistent toxic
substances. Similar goal statements also appear in the Clean
Water Act and the Great Lakes Governors Toxic Substance Control
Agreement. "Virtual elimination" of toxic substances is a long-
range goal that will require application of waste minimization and
recycling, and further optimization of waste treatment technology.
Specific pollution prevention proposals on approaches for
achieving "virtual elimination" of the discharge of toxic
substances need to be developed for the Great Lakes Basin.
To ensure a more consistent approach to meeting the obligations of
the United States under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
to ensure appropriate public participation in decision making
related to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and to provide
a basis for negotiation of water quality objectives and programs
with Canada under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, U.S.
EPA and the Great Lakes states will do the following:
1. As a general rule, the United States will presume that the
current U.S. EPA water quality criteria are applicable to the
Great Lakes. The criteria will be the starting point for
negotiations with Canada on specific objectives under the
GLWQA. Objectives that are not equivalent to U.S. EPA water
quality criteria will not be agreed to by the U.S. without a
sound scientific basis that is consistent with U.S. EPA
policy.
2. U.S. EPA will develop Section 304(a) guidance specifically
designed for the Great Lakes Basin. U.S. EPA's guidance will
include recommended water quality criteria, antidegradation
33
-------
policies and implementation procedures. In accordance with
Section 118(c)(l)(E) of the Clean Water Act, U.S. EPA will
coordinate the development of the guidance with the states'
development of water quality standards to protect the Great
Lakes. Extensive public input will be solicited to help the
efforts of U.S. EPA and the states.
3. As states review and revise the state water quality
standards, antidegradation policies and implementation
procedures, they will ensure consistency with the guidance
developed by U.S. EPA for the Great Lakes Basin.
4. The guidance for the Great Lakes Basin will be used by the
United States in further negotiations with Canada on GLWQA
obj ectives.
5. Pollution prevention guidance will be developed so that over
the long term, the U.S. can go beyond the Great Lakes water
quality criteria and proceed toward the goal of virtual
elimination of the discharge of toxic substances.
6. In the interim period, prior to the completion of the Great
Lakes guidance, the Great Lakes states will agree to review
water quality program requirements for consistency with the
goals of the GLWQA. States will offer the public in the
Great Lakes Basin an opportunity to comment on the
consistency of its program requirements with the GLWQA.
Air Quality Division staff have proposed draft language for
amending the federal Clean Air Act to protect the Great Lakes and
other aquatic ecosystems from deposition of air toxic compounds.
The proposal focuses on the development of emission standards
which reflect maximum achievable controls for air emission sources
of persistent pollutants of concern in the Great Lakes Basin.
This proposal incorporates special thresholds for minimum source
size (emission rate) to address concerns that cumulative loadings
to surface waters from sources of relatively small individual
emission rates may accumulate to levels of concern for human
health and environmental protection.
Michigan staff have led extensive discussions and made revisions
to the federal amendment proposal in order to reach regional
consensus support on the concepts from the other Great Lakes air
directors. The proposal has also been endorsed by the Great Lakes
Environmental Administrators for the Council of Great Lakes
Governors. Air Quality staff have worked with he Council to
develop summary documents highlighting priority issues for Clean
Air amendments to inform appropriate legislative offices and
interested parties of our Great Lakes concerns and
recommendations. Department of Natural Resources top management
representatives met with U.S. Representative John Dingell's staff
to discuss possible amendments to his HR4 legislative package in
order to more fully address Great Lakes concerns.
34
-------
Staff are analyzing several legislative proposals for amendments
to the federal Clean Air Act to address air toxic emissions.
Suggested additional language for protection of aquatic ecosystems
is being developed for S816, HR2585 and the Bush Administration
legislative packages. Efforts will be ongoing to ensure that
federal amendments will adequately address aquatic ecosystem
concerns.
Permitting
Surface Water Quality Division is preparing a draft set of revised
administrative rules to incorporate the anti-backsliding concept
into the wastewater discharge permit system. A public advisory
committee—formed in 1987~will review the draft rules when
completed.
Surface Water Quality Division's "Five-year Basin Strategy" been
completely implemented for all major dischargers. This strategy
calls for NPDES permit reissuance for all major discharges so that
one-fifth of the waterbodies in Michigan are assessed each year on
a five-year repeating basis. Thus all discharges of individual
toxic pollutants to a given waterbody are considered together to
ensure that cumulative impacts will not exceed the receiving water
standards.
A permitting workshop for representatives of the Great Lakes
states was organized by the Council of Great Lakes Governors and
held in Chicago in June 1989. The purposes of the meeting were
to:
a. Develop better understanding of the water quality and permit
programs in other Great Lakes states.
b. Discuss issues of mutual interest.
c. Identify issues which may cause future conflicts between the
states.
d. Report to the Great Lakes Environmental Administrators on the
discussions of the meeting and any recommendations from the
work group.
Hazardous Waste Management
Michigan's Environmental Technology Board has developed
preliminary recommendations on how waste reduction should be
addressed in the state. The Board is recommending the
establishment of a "Michigan Industrial Waste Reduction
Partnership." The partnership will be composed of industrial,
governmental, academic and public representatives. Over the next
12-18 months, it will devise a strategy for promoting waste
reduction and increasing awareness in industry of the benefits of
waste reduction. The Environmental Technology Board's final
35
-------
recommendations will be submitted to the Governor by September 1,
1989.
The ONR's Office of Waste Reduction and the Department of
Commerce's Waste Reduction Assistance Service have been fully
staffed. These offices are moving forward with their joint
venture to provide direct waste reduction assistance to selected
industries and to identify and remove regulatory impediments to
waste reductions.
Waste Management Division distributed grants totalling $68,000 to
six communities under the Clean Michigan Fund to run household
hazardous waste collection days. Three household hazardous waste
collection centers were also funded under the first round of the
Quality of Life Bond program. These grants totalled $300,000.
A new commercial hazardous waste treatment facility was sited in
Michigan during 1988. The facility is designed to treat aqueous
inorganic wastes.
New legislation has been enacted which establishes a special
regulatory program for ash produced from the incineration of
municipal solid waste. The new law exempts ash from regulation as
a hazardous waste and provides comprehensive new regulations under
the Michigan Solid Waste Management Act.
Michigan amended its hazardous waste rules to facilitate licensing
of research and experimental hazardous waste treatment facilities.
New rules are under development to facilitate licensing of full
scale hazardous waste treatment disposal facilities which utilize
innovative, non-standard technologies.
Waste Management Division has completely rewritten all of the
state's solid waste administrative rules. The new rules propose
substantial increases in landfill license standards. The rules
will be released for public comment in September 1989.
This type of meeting is expected to be held annually to improve
interstate communication on important water permit issues.
Great Lakes Protection Fund
Voters overwhelmingly approved the $800 million Quality of Life
Bond proposal in November 1988 which included Michigan's
contribution of $25 million to the Great Lakes Protection Fund.
Legislation to implement Michigan's participation in the Great
Lakes Protection Fund was signed into law by Governor Blanchard
July 25. Michigan's $25 million contribution to the Fund will be
made as soon as the 1989 Supplemental Appropriations bill is
passed. The legislation establishes an advisory committee to
assure broadly based public input to advise the state
representatives to the Great Lakes Protection Fund Board of
Directors and the state Water Resources Commission, the latter of
36
-------
which is responsible for making the final determination of grants
for state projects under the Great Lakes Protection Fund.
Information Exchange
Air Quality Division staff arranged and facilitated an air toxic
workshop for state regulatory staff on July 25 and 26, 1989 to
continue work begun at the July 1987 workshop to develop a unified
regional Great Lakes air toxics strategy. Representatives from
U.S. EPA, Environment Canada and the Center for Clean Air Policy
also attended.
Attendees split into two work groups focusing on emission
inventory and permitting issues, respectively. Emission inventory
work products included an agreement on the general regional
inventory structure and proposed schedule for two-phase
development of a point, area, and mobile sources database. The
permitting work group refined several working documents developed
by Michigan staff.
Work products of the permitting work group include a draft
permitting agreement, a draft petition for federal amendments to
the Clean Air Act for air toxic substances, and a draft resolution
for federal assistance to the Great Lakes states' air agencies in
Great Lakes protection efforts. This group also discussed a
proposal developed by Michigan staff for state legislation to
obtain full authority to require Best Available Control Technology
on both new and existing air toxic sources.
Fish Consumption Advisory
The 1989 Public Health Fish Consumption Advisory for the Great
Lakes provides the same information as the 1988 advisory* The
Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisory Task Force met in Chicago on
July 18 and 19, 1989 to discuss the Governors' Toxic Substance
Control Agreement's directive to develop common fish consumption
advisories for each of the Great Lakes. Based on these
discussions, the following timetable was agreed to by the Great
Lakes states and Province of Ontario to develop uniform fish
consumption advisories.
1. Re-evaluate standardized monitoring and sampling methods at
the November 1989 Task Force meeting.
2. Complete literature review on human health effects data needs
for the November 1989 Task Force meeting.
3. Evaluate the public's understanding and awareness of current
Great Lakes Fish Consumption Advisories for discussion at the
November 1989 Task Force meeting.
37
-------
4. Issue a joint risk communication pamphlet February 1990.
5. Complete a Market Basket Survey comparing concentrations of
toxic chemicals in commercially sold fish versus Great Lakes
sport caught fish by September 1991.
6. Develop common criteria for issuing Great Lakes Fish
Consumption Advisories by January 1992.
Public Involvement
Surface Water Quality Division completed three Remedial Action
Plans (RAPs) in 1988 after reviewing public comment on the drafts<
Saginaw Bay/River and the Rouge River RAPs were submitted to the
International Joint Commission (IJC) in October 1988 and the
Clinton River was submitted in November 1988. Comments on these
RAPs were received from the International Joint Commission and are
currently being addressed by the respective RAP coordinators from
Surface Water Quality Division. The Kalamazoo draft RAP was
reviewed at a public meeting in 1988. Comments were received and
are currently being incorporated into the final draft which will
be submitted to the IJC. Stage one RAPs for the Detroit, St.
Clair, St. Marys and Menominee Rivers are in various stages of
development. Public meetings to review these RAPs will be
scheduled in 1990.
Dredging
Following nearly one and a half years of deliberation on the issue
of overflow dredging, the Water Resources Commission (WRC)
determined at its December 15, 1988 meeting that in general,
overflow dredging in areas with contaminated sediments results in
unacceptable impacts on designated uses. Further, in areas where
dredged sediment is not suitable for open water disposal, these
sediments are considered contaminated. Finally, it was determined
that pursuant to Rule 92 of the WRC rules, Water Quality standards
apply to overflow dredging in contaminated areas unless the Water
Resources Commission determines, upon demonstration made by the
person undertaking the activity, that there will be no
unacceptable adverse impacts on designated uses.
To implement the Water Resources Commission's determination,
Surface Water Quality Division staff have reviewed recent sediment
chemistry data from three Corps of Engineers project areas
(Saginaw River and Bay, St. Clair River and Detroit River). Based
on this data review, the following conclusions were reached:
1. Sediments in two reaches of the Saginaw River are
contaminated for purposes of this determination, and pursuant
to Rule 92, the water quality standards apply. Therefore,
overflow dredging should not be used in the Saginaw River
near Crow Island (approximately 2 miles) and from the Middle
Grounds to the confined disposal facility in Saginaw Bay
(approximately 11.5 miles).
38
-------
2. Sediments in the St. Clair River are not contaminated for
purposes of the determination by the Hater Resources
Commission. Therefore, overflow dredging is not restricted
in the St. Clair River. However, this project will be re-
evaluated when new data become available.
3. Sediments in the Detroit River are not contaminated for
purposes of the determination by the Water Resources
Commission. Therefore, overflow dredging is not restricted
in the Detroit River. However, this project will be re-
evaluated when new data become available.
Groundwater Quality
Legislation was passed in 1987 to establish an underground storage
tank registration program. Legislation was passed in 1988 and
amended in 1989 to enable the Department of Natural Resources to
take immediate corrective action on leaking underground storage
tanks to protect groundwater and to provide access to funding
corrective actions by private parties in cases where cost exceed
$10,000 for any single, specific tank system.
Under the leadership of the Groundwater Coordinating Council, made
up of the Deputy Directors of the Departments of Natural
Resources, Agriculture and Public Health, the Michigan Groundwater
Protection Strategy and Implementation Plan has been developed by
the Office of Water Resources.
The draft strategy has been reviewed by a broad-based public
advisory committee and will be submitted to the federal
Environmental Protection Agency by October 1.
Other groundwater protection bills have been introduced to provide
well head protection, mandatory well testing, and establish
groundwater standards.
Air Quality
Michigan staff are pursuing federal funding to assist in obtaining
contractual services for development of the regional air emission
inventory. Michigan staff are also initiating efforts to work
with Canadian agency representatives to ensure compatibility of
computerized air toxic emission databases. Michigan staff are
cooperating with the U.S. EPA Transboundary and Lake Michigan
projects to compile air toxic source and emissions data for Great
Lakes pollutants of concern.
Michigan staff led discussions to refine the Great Lakes Air
Permitting Agreement, which is supported by the Council of Great
Lakes Governors. Provisions of this agreement specify that state
air agencies will reguire Best Available Control technology for
toxics on new and existing air sources of several critical
pollutants wherever possible, pursue additional authority if
39
-------
needed, require source testing as appropriate, enter permit
information into national databases, and exchange permit
information between the states. Michigan staff have drafted an
implementation plan, including procedures for permit evaluation
and identification of resource and authority needs for full
implementation of the agreement provisions. This draft is
undergoing review and will be implemented upon final approval.
The Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission and the Director of
the Department established an Air Toxics Policy Committee to
develop a new long-range strategy for Michigan including rules for
regulating new and existing sources of air toxins. The committee
is finalizing draft regulations for new and modified air toxics
sources. These regulation proposals have been analyzed by Air
Quality Division staff. As currently drafted, these regulations
for new sources would be in accordance with the Toxic Substances
Control Agreement.
Nonooint Source Pollution
The statewide nonpoint source assessment and nonpoint source
management strategy were submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in August 1988 after receiving extensive public
comment. An augmented, updated strategy was submitted to the EPA
completing the strategy document in the fall of 1988. The
statewide nonpoint source assessment was approved by the EPA, but
the state is still awaiting the EPA's approval of the strategy
itself with approval expected by August 1989.
The strategy outlines federal, state and local programs to control
nonpoint source pollution. It establishes procedures to identify
priority watersheds, and will utilize interagency (federal, state
and local) teams to work with those watersheds to identify water
quality problems and the appropriate management practices to
correct those water quality problems.
40
-------
Summary of Minnesota's Strategy for
Implementing the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement
Introduction
The Toxic Substances Control Agreement signed by the Governors of the eight
Great Lakes states in May of 1986 contains a number of principles, commitments
and initiatives to achieve mutual goals, and serves a major purpose by
providing a focus for the states to collectively vork on the difficult task of
toxics control.
The Agreement lists several elements to achieve the desired level of
management. The following is a summary of activities which Minnesota has
undertaken to implement the Toxic Substances Control Agreement.
Federal Role in Regulatory Toxic Substances
Minnesota continues in a number of ways to participate in the management of the
Great Lakes. This is done directly through the implementation of its own
environmental regulatory programs, as well as through working with other
institutions including the International Joint Commission (IJC) Water Quality
Board and its Committees and Vork Groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) through its annual program work plans in water, air and hazardous
waste, and the Great Lakes Commission (GLC).
Minnesota has initiated a two-part toxicity testing strategy as part of a
larger toxicant control strategy to protect aquatic life from toxicity in
Minnesota's surface waters. The initial part of the strategy involved
screening and prioritizing all point source dischargers for their potential of
having toxic effluents. The second part was the establishment of a routine
permit processing phase that accomplishes thorough toxics review.
During the review and prioritization phase four criteria were employed in a
matrix to make the assessment: 1) dilution ratios at low flow; 2) previous
acute and chronic toxicity testing conducted on effluents; 3) review of
chemical specific data from applications, monitoring reports, and other survey
data; 4) review of categorical and pretreatment discharges. A substantial part
of this review was needed for the Section 304(1) effort required in the 1987
Clean Water Act amendments. Dilution ratios for all dischargers where 7Q10 low
flows were available were calculated. Many dischargers discharge to small
receiving waters whose low flow values are unknown. Extensive efforts are
being made to obtain the absent data. All previous positive toxicity tests
were reviewed. Those with true positives will receive priority status, while
those that are questionable or have problems with testing artifacts will be the
subject of retesting as part of the Section 304(1) process. Ambient water
quality, sediment, and fish tissue data for toxicants have been reviewed. A
review of the various forms of effluent monitoring data and
categorical/pretreatment dischargers has been integrated with low flow and
toxicity testing data and a 304(1) short list was produced. One Great Lakes
discharger, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, was included on the 304(1)
short list and a permit was issued with water quality based limits and Schedule
of Compliance.
41
-------
A procedure document for toxicant review in permit processing has been written
and is being utilized. It outlines chemical specific and toxicity testing
reviews which are to be conducted at the time of permit issuance or as a matter
of compliance review.
Permits are being issued which contain three of the four toxicity testing
options which are applied to dischargers known or suspected to have toxic
effluents. Some initial permits were written with pass/fail requirements to
trigger toxicity reduction evaluations (TREs). This is being replaced with a
policy that examines toxicity from the standpoint of duration and frequency of
toxicity, strength of toxicity, and species sensitivity.
Clean Water
Following the triennial review and revision of Minnesota's Water Quality
Standards, the rule (Minn. Rules pt. 7050.0180) became effective on March 7,
1987. Lake Superior is protected by the nondegradation component of the above
rule. In addition, the incorporation of specific water quality standards for
toxics and a procedure for developing water quality standards for toxics will
be added to the rules for adoption in February 1990. By August 1988, the
Minnesota Ground Water Protection Strategy had been reviewed and received
approval from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens Board, the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), and Governor Rudy Perpich. The
central theme of the strategy is the need for protection of our ground water
resource from pollution and misuse and the need for strong efforts toward
public information and education on the myriad of ways in which human
activities impact ground water. The same team of people who developed the
Strategy worked on drafting legislation to implement its key provisions as a
Governor's initiative for the 1989 Session.
After extensive hearings, a new bill was assembled and passed as the Ground
Water Protection Act of 1989. Most significantly, the Act contains a
Degradation Prevention Goal which reads as follows:
It is the goal of the state that ground water be maintained in
its natural condition, free from any degradation caused by
human activities. It is recognized that for some human
activities this degradation prevention goal cannot be
practicably achieved. However, where prevention is
practicable, it is intended that it be achieved. Where it is
not currently practicable, the development of methods and
technology that will make prevention practicable is
encouraged. (Laws of Minnesota 1989, Chapter 326)
The task at hand is to implement the State's ground water programs with this
goal as guidance.
42
-------
Permitting
Minnesota participated in developing the permitting strategy for the Great
Lakes Council of Governors. The strategy was completed in August 1987. A
number of areas vere highlighted in the Agreement, including the following:
1) States are to meet annually to share and discuss problems and solutions
related to water quality permitting.
2) Minnesota has completed the documentation for a calculating water quality
criteria. Procedures for transforming these criteria to effluent
limitations are also being documented. As mentioned, the revisions to
water quality standards for toxics is proposed for February 1990.
Hazardous Waste Management
Minnesota has final authorization under the Resources Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) from the U.S. EPA for implementation of the state hazardous waste
program. Minnesota's Hazardous Waste Regulations (Minnesota Rules Chapter
7045) cover generators, transporters, storage facilities, recycling facilities,
treatment facilities, and disposal facilities.
Minnesota has expanded its Household Hazardous Vaste Program over the last
year. During 1988, 15 single event collections were held and 3 permanent sites
were developed. Education and information/waste exchange components were
enhanced to increase the overall effectiveness of the program. The state's
pilot pesticide collection project held five agricultural pesticide collection
events throughout Minnesota. This activity has been made into a permanent
collection effort to be carried out by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
Minnesota's storage tank program requires the owners and operators of tanks
with releases of hazardous substances to clean them up. The program provides
partial reimbursement to people who clean up leaks through the state petro fund
program. Regulatory programs to prevent leaks are being expanded.
In August 1987, the MPCA received authority to issue administrative penalty
orders (APO). Since that time the MPCA has issued 25 APO's to various handlers
for hazardous waste violations. The APO authority has greatly improved the
MPCA's ability to resolve hazardous waste noncompliance in a timely and
efficient manner. The state has also stepped up its efforts in the prosecution
of environmental crimes. The MPCA has assisted the state Attorney General and
county attorneys in the case development and investigation of hazardous waste
crimes. In addition, the MPCA and the attorney general's office have provided
training to state and local law enforcement officials in an attempt to heighten
awareness. It is expected that these efforts will further increase the
effectiveness of the state's environmental crimes enforcement program.
43
-------
An inter-agency and industry vork group has met for several years to discuss
issues related to the management of used oil. The MPCA expects to adopt rules
in January of 1990 that incorporate existing federal regulations, and add a few
additional controls. Recent concerns about the export of used oil contaminated
vith hazardous waste from the United States to Canada has prompted the MPCA to
further explore industry practices in Minnesota, although no evidence exists
that such exportation is occurring from the state.
Infectious Waste
The result of the Attorney General's study of infectious waste management was
preparation and passage of the Infectious Waste Control Act of 1989. An
overriding issue with infectious waste is how to manage the materials that are
generated. The new law requires that generators prepare management plans for
handling, transportation, and proper disposal of infectious waste. Rules are
currently being developed to implement the new law. Minnesota, along with the
other Great Lake states, opted out of the federal Medical Waste Tracking
program.
Ash
The temporary program for storage, sampling, and testing of ash from municipal
solid waste incineration was adopted in April 1989 as an interim management
program until the final rules can be developed for testing, management and
disposal. There are currently 10 facilities operating and 3 in various stages
of development in Minnesota which must comply with the temporary program. In
related activities, several studies have been funded to try to reduce the
toxicity of the ash by removing problem materials from the waste stream before
incineration.
The MPCA developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Department of
Agriculture to identify activities for pesticide and fertilizer issues. The
MOA includes areas of concern such as complaints, release incidents, cleanups
of contaminated areas, coordination for inspections, enforcement activities,
and sampling, and sets up a formal structure for communication on key issues of
mutual concern. An Agency pesticide coordinator was appointed to handle
inquiries relating to pesticides and a MOA between the Agency and the
Department of Agriculture was negotiated for handling pesticide issues which
crossed programmatic responsibilities of the two agencies.
In the past year, the MPCA has provided special hazardous waste training to
other state agencies and has developed a contract for hazardous waste disposal
by state agencies.
The MPCA was awarded a $320,000 RITTA grant over a two-year period from the EPA
in September 1988 for hazardous waste training and technical assistance. The
grant is divided into two parts. The first part, accounting for 80 percent of
the grant, is designated toward the development and implementation of an
industrial waste minimization pilot project which is now ongoing. A survey of
44
-------
solvent generators and a variety of educational materials on waste minimization
are being developed. Additional factory site-specific waste audits and waste
minimization recommendations are also being carried out for ten companies. The
remaining 20 percent of the grant is for the development and implementation of
a five year hazardous waste state training action plan. The plan is currently
in draft form and under review.
Solid Waste Rules and Recycling Legislation
New comprehensive solid waste management rules were formally adopted in
November 1988. The rules include requirements for facilities siting, design,
operation and performance, including ground water quality standards and
financial assurance for closure and post-closure care.
No new waste reduction and recycling legislation has been passed. After
failure to pass a bill in the 1988 session, the Governor appointed a Select
Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) to develop consensus on the
many waste reduction and recycling issues being discussed. The SCORE report
was the basis for a bill which failed to pass in the last hours of the session.
It is possible that this bill will be considered in a Special Session in fall
of 1989. The bill includes an array of recycling and waste reduction programs
to be funded at both the county and state levels. The proposed funding would
be generated from a six percent sales tax on garbage collection, although other
funding proposals were a variable tax based on the method of garbage disposal,
i.e. landfill, incineration, or recycling, and a special tax on problem
materials.
Basin Vide Notice of Discharge Permits
Minnesota has continued to participate through the Council offices in receiving
and providing notice to other states as requested.
Accidental Discharge of Pollutants
The HPCA continues to maintain a 24-hour, 365-day per year response system for
spills. The first response is always to seek adequate cleanup by the
responsible party. State Superfund and "Petro Fund" authorities can be used to
force parties responsible for contaminated sites to clean-up. If they are
unable or unwilling to do so, both funds provide monies for state funded
emergency and long-term cleanups. The Regional Response Team has become more
active; the HPCA is participating in this Team's planning efforts for response
to major incidents.
Atmospheric Deposition
The Agency has advanced in its development of a regulation controlling
emissions from municipal waste incinerators. Currently, a draft rule has been
written and is undergoing public review and comment. We anticipate
promulgation of a final rule in the summer of 1990. In addition, the Agency
45
-------
has developed a formal policy for addressing air toxic emissions from medical
waste incinerators. This policy is expected to be implemented until
regulations for medical vaste incinerators can be promulgated, a process
expected to begin in 1991.
In an effort to assess the environmental impacts of incinerators, the Agency
has recently received significant funding from our legislature to investigate
this issue. A grant of $250,000 has been received to evaluate air toxic
emissions from medical vaste incinerators. Also, a $300,000 grant has been
avarded to the Agency to assess the environmental fate of dioxins and
dibenzofurans through an aquatic food chain. In addition to these grants, the
Agency routinely requires extensive environmental monitoring of dioxins and
dibenzofurans, lead and mercury in permits for municipal vaste incinerators.
These requirements most often stipulate that pollutant levels be measured in
water, sediment and fish both prior to start-up of the facility and on a
periodic basis once operation has begun.
In terms of atmospheric deposition of air toxic pollutants from sources other
than incinerators, the agency continues to assess and regulate air toxic
emissions from numerous source categories through the permitting process. We
are also developing a data base of information on the toxicity and
environmental fate of persistent pollutants in anticipation of promulgation of
an air toxics regulation in 1991.
Our acid deposition program continues to monitor vet and dry deposition and
lake and stream chemistry in order to determine compliance vith our acid
deposition standard and to meet our legislative mandate to re-evaluate the
standard in 1991. Ve have also recently received additional funding for
research projects to study other related aspects of acid deposition and its
effects on the environment.
Monitoring and Surveillance
The Agency has continued to participate vith the IJC and EPA on the monitoring
program under the Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan (GLISP), as veil
as in extensive tributary monitoring as part of the Lake Superior Intensive
study by the Upper Lakes Reference Group, The data is computerized so that it
is compatible for doing loading calculations for the entire lake.
Minnesota continues to collect vater quality parameters requested by the IJC.
These include chloride, total lead, calcium, total sodium, total sulfate, and
silicate. Data for these parameters are collected at tvo tributary stations
during nine months of the year as part of the Agency's routine monitoring
program. The tributary stations are Beaver River and St. Louis Bay.
In St. Louis Bay, the Minnesota Department of Health has continued to issue
fish consumption advisories due to PCB and mercury levels. The Agency is
continuing vith PCB and mercury analyses of fish flesh. Lov levels of dioxin
have been found in fish tissue. In cooperation vith Wisconsin, Minnesota has
46
-------
initiated the development of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for the St. Louis
"area of concern." The Agency has also completed extensive fish tissue
monitoring for PCBs and mercury in Lake Superior.
Information Exchange
Minnesota is participating through the Council. In addition, Minnesota has
participated in Task Force meetings on dredge material and has submitted to the
Task Force a report on how Minnesota handles in-place pollutants. Staff also
participated in the Dredging Workshop held in September 1987 in Chicago.
A workshop on land application of sevage sludge vas held in Chicago, Illinois
in March 1987. Representatives from the Council of Great Lakes Governors, EPA
Region V, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were
present. The report on the Workshop with its accompanying recommendations vas
forwarded to the Council of Great Lakes Governors on August 21, 1987.
Minnesota has participated in a number of additional workshops over the past
year, including the September 1987 Biomonitoring Workshop held in Detroit and
the Solid Waste Incineration Workshop sponsored by the MPCA also in September
1987.
Fish Consumption Advisories
Over the past year, Minnesota has pursued an interagency approach (involving
the Agency, Department of Natural Resources, and Health Department) in
continuing to develop and refine compatible fish consumption advisories on Lake
Superior. We continue to have compatible advisories among the United States
jurisdictions on each lake, however, health advisories between lakes should
also be sought.
Human Exposure and Health Effects Assessment
Minnesota continues to participate through the health effects working group
through the Minnesota Department of Health and the Council.
In addition, the Agency has developed procedures manuals for making decisions
regarding toxics in several areas. The Agency's solid waste program has
developed a "Health Risk Assessment Procedures for Superfund Hazardous Waste
Sites," completed in draft form on December 1, 1987. Finally, a draft water
quality document, "Guidelines for the Development and Application of Water
Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances" outlines the Agency's assumptions and
procedures for developing aquatic life criteria. The document includes
procedures for developing fish consumption numbers based on the human
consumption of sport-caught fish, reference classes for noncarcinogens and
potency slopes for carcinogens. It provides that a fish consumption advisory
will parallel the criteria. The proposed procedures are being reviewed by a
Toxics Technical Advisory Committee prior to being finalized.
47
-------
Public Involvement
The development of the Remedial Action Plan (RAF) in Minnesota vill entail
considerable involvement by the public during the next two years. A Citizens
Advisory Committee has been formed to provide input into the RAP, as veil as
scientific and technical advisory committees for each of the pollution issues.
The RAP vill focus on restoring the adversely impacted beneficial uses of St.
Louis Bay. Extensive public involvement in the development of the RAP is
essential to obtaining local ownership of the pollution problems and
developing a plan that can be effectively implemented.
48
-------
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
IN THE GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENT
ANNUAL REPORT
New York State continues to be committed to the principles
set forth by the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control
Agreement of 1986 and the Memorandum of Understanding on
Control of Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes (MOU) which
was entered into on June 13, 1988, by the Great Lakes
Governors and Premiers. This commitment is demonstrated
through implementation of various toxics control programs as
well as through participation with other institutions
including the International Joint Commission, Great Lakes
Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
other groups having interests in the management of toxic
substances in the Great Lakes. A draft Great Lakes Agenda
for New York State has been prepared by an inter-agency
steering committee, comprised of 11 State agency members,
which describes for each agency existing activities,
additional needs, and recommendations for future policy and
programs related to Great Lakes issues.
The focal point in New York State for Great Lakes toxics
management programs is the Department of Environmental
Conservation. In accordance with the 1986 Agreement, the
Department prepared a Management Plan that describes
on-going programs or- policy documents and planned activities
that address the commitments of the Agreement. That
Management Plan is unchanged and serves as the basis for
Great Lakes basin program activities related to toxic
substances control. This report summarizes the activities
that New York has undertaken during the past year to
implement the Agreement and the MOU.
49
-------
PERMITTING
New York controls toxic discharges from point sources
through implementation of the State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES). Permit limits are based on
protection of human health, protection of aquatic life, and
best available technology (BAT) including the State's best
professional judgement (BPJ) of BAT in the absence of federal
BAT guidelines, whichever is strictest. Under the Lake
Ontario Toxics Management Plan, New York has committed to a
review of BPJ-based permit limits on a five-year basis to
assure they are in conformance with current technologies.
Basin-wide allocations are carried out to insure that
cumulative effects are accounted for in setting permit
limits. The basic approach is chemical-by-chemical
limitations, but biomonitoring is incorporated into permits
where the use of that approach alone may not be sufficient to
protect best uses. The SPDES permit system is used for
discharges to both surface water and groundwater.
New York State maintains an active program in the
development of new and revised water quality standards.
Standards are developed for protection of human health and
aquatic life and apply to both surface waters and
groundwaters. New or revised standards for eight substances
will be in rulemaking later this year.
The State's groundwater protection program is presented in
the Long Island Groundwater Management Program (June, 1986)
and the Upstate Groundwater Managment Program (May, 1987).
These documents discuss groundwater problems, existing
groundwater management programs, and recommended actions for
all levels of government to enhance protection of this
important resource.
The current emphasis for New York's groundwater protection
program is wellhead protection which is a mandate of the
amended federal Safe Drinking Water Act and is a logical
evolution of the State's efforts. The Department of
Environmental Conservation plans to submit a wellhead
protection program to the USEPA in 1989.
50
-------
BASINWIDE NOTICE OF DISCHARGE PERMITS
New York is prepared to respond to all requests for
information on new permits and water quality standards and
will consider those factors presented in the MOU in
the development of such information for other Great Lakes
jurisdictions.
PROGRESSIVE REDUCTION OF LOADING OF PERSISTENT SUBSTANCES
New York considers that all persistent toxic substances are
subject to control under its water quality programs. For
point sources, the SPDES program is the primary means for
regulation of toxic substance discharges to surface water
and groundwater. Further reduction of toxics towards zero
discharge will occur as a result of improvements in
treatment technology reflected through federal BAT and the
DEC commitment to review BPJ limits on a five-year cyclic
basis. A plan is being prepared for the control of non-point
sources of toxic substances and is due to be completed by
September 30, 1989.
The Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, which was released
in February 1989, contains the New York State commitments to
activities that will reduce toxic inputs to Lake Ontario.
For the Niagara River, New York is committed to a 50 percent
reduction of specified toxic substances by 1996 under the
Niagara River Toxics Management Plan.
ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS
There were no reported spills in New York waters in the
past year that could have significantly affected shared
resources.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
New York has several program areas that encourage source
reduction of hazardous wasts. Descriptions of requirements
for generators of hazardous waste, fee programs, regulatory
programs and lahdburial restrictions were provided in the
May 1988 Great Lakes TSCA Annual Report. Last year the
Department of Environmental Conservation began the
rule-making process for regulations that will require the
submission of a Waste Reduction Impact Statement (WRIS) with
each application for a hazardous waste treatment, storage
and disposal facility (TSDF). Until these regulations are
finalized, WRISs are required as TSDF permit conditions.
51
-------
The Department of Environmental Conservation co-sponsored
with the Business Council of New York State, Inc. the First
Annual Hazardous Waste Reduction Conference on June 7 and 8,
1988. That conference was attended by more than 250
individuals from government and industry and played.a
significant role in shaping the waste reduction policy in
New York. A second conference is scheduled for June 13 and
14, 1989, and is expected to continue the dialogue between
industry and government and further shape New York's waste
reduction programs.
A "Hazardous Waste Reduction Guidance Manual" was prepared
under contract with ICF Technology, Inc. to assist industry
in reducing waste. A series of six workshops was held across
New York State to explain the manual and provide assistance
in waste reduction. The Department intends to build on this
generic manual by preparing an industry-specific
waste-reduction manual in 1989 and 1990 with co-funding from
USEPA. New York was awarded a $300,000 Source Reduction and
Recycling Technical Assistance (SORRTA) grant by USEPA to
assist in the expansion of the Department's hazardous waste
reduction program. The SORRTA grant will expand New York's
existing RCRA waste-oriented waste-reduction program to a
multi-media effort.
The Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange, located in
Syracuse, New York, continues to provide services to waste
producers and waste users for the purpose of recycling these
materials into manufacturing processes. The "Hazardous Waste
Reduction Guidance Manual" includes descriptions of
recommended recycling practices and available resources.
The Department of Environmental Conservation continues to
impose fees on hazardous waste generators and facilities
under the Environmental Regulatory Fee System and State
Superfund Fee Program. A description of these programs was
presented in the May 1988 Annual Report. The Department has
been developing a statewide hazardous waste facilities siting
plan based on regional and statewide needs for hazardous
waste facilities. The completion of this plan has been
delayed due to extensive public review and comments, once
the plan is finalized, the Department must immediately
undertake activities to assist interested companies in
establishing sites for the needed facilities.
New York State provides an annual appropriation of
$1 million to the New York State Center for Hazardous Waste
Management in Buffalo, New York, which was established by
the State Legislature in 1987 to contribute a better
foundation for improved hazardous waste management practices
in New York State. In its first year of operation, the
Center established a vigorous research program, contributing
$1.5 million toward a total program cost of $2.7 million.
52
-------
Outreach initiatives were also undertaken, including
sponsorship of several conferences, preparation of a special
hazardous waste information and education needs assessment
report for Niagara County, and the development of an
industrial affiliates program. In its second year, the
Center approved funding commitments for eight new projects
at a total cost of at least $1.3 million.
New York State continues to require and monitor the safe
disposal of residual wastes generated by reduction, reycling
and reuse activities.
A manual, entitled "How to Apply for a Permit to construct
and Operate a Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Facility", and a series of fact sheets on the proper
disposal of household hazardous waste were developed in 1989.
These are available to the public and are expected to
encourage more responsible disposal methods for household
hazardous waste.
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
The Department of Environmental Conservation requires project
sponsors to address impacts on both human health and aquatic
life through preparation of an environmental impact statement
prior to issuing permits for construction of large air
emission sources. The assessment must include the impacts
resulting from atmospheric deposition. During this reporting
period, eight projects were evaluated specifically for
impacts on aquatic life. In addition, the Department
requires that impacts on fish and wildlife and on human
health be considered in the development of ambient guideline
concentrations used for permitting air emission sources.
MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE
New York continues membership on the IJC Surveillance Work
Group and implements the Great Lakes International
Surveillance Plan to the degree that priorities and
resources allow.
New York collects discharge monitoring data from point
sources and tributary loading data and forwards information
to IJC as requested. In general, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has assumed the responsibility for
providing IJC with New York data under the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.
53
-------
New York has committed to a major revision of its tributary
loading program on Lake Ontario so that reliable loadings
can be provided as called for under the Lake Ontario Toxics
Management Plan. New York is participating with USEPA,
Environment Canada, and the Ontario Ministry of the
Environment on a major river monitoring program, which
includes upstream and downstream stations, under the Niagara
River Toxics Management Plan.
A pilot monitoring station is being established on the
Buffalo River that will automatically adjust its sampling
frequency to river flow and take large-volume samples for
chemical analysis at low detection limits. This station
will serve as a prototype for attempts to estimate nonpoint
source toxics loadings to the Niagara River and is an
integral part of remedial measures under the Buffalo River
Remedial Action Plan.
New York continues to implement a biennial fish sampling and
analysis program, which was initiated in 1978 to examine
persistent pesticides, PCBs and mercury.
New York analyzed contaminants in waterfowl from the Great
Lakes basin in 1983 through 1985. This information has been
made available to parties to the Agreement but no specific
action has been taken based on those data. In 1985 New York
independently implemented a health advisory for human
consumers of waterfowl.
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES
New York has cooperated in interstate/international
discussions of fish consumption advisories. The last
discussions occurred in 1987 and resulted in the issuance of
advisories on the consumption of fish from Lake Erie and Lake
Ontario that were compatible with data available at that
time. In 1988 New York independently rescinded an advisory on
Lake Erie channel catfish and carp when new data showed the
previous advisory was unwarranted. All participating states
were notified. New data support the current advisories for
consumption of fish from Lake Ontario.
GREAT LAKES.PROTECTION FUND
Legislation was introduced in the State Senate on April 17,
1989, that would provide for the establishment of New York's
$12 million contribution to the Great Lakes Protection Fund.
This money would be generated through a surcharge on users
of Great Lakes Basin waters.
54
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
New York State has emphasized the importance of public
involvement and awareness in decisions affecting the Great
Lakes. The following are some of the activities that have
utilized public participation on Great Lakes issues:
- The Great Lakes Advisory Council to advise the Governor on
development of Great Lakes policies.
- Citizen committees that work with the Department to
prepare Remedial Action Plans for each of the Areas of
Concern designated in New York State.
- Citizen members on technical committees established under
the Niagara River and Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan.
- Public representation on Fish and wildlife Management
Boards and on the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's Lakes
Committees.
55
-------
GREAT LAKES TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL AGREEMENT UPDATE
OHIO
Permitting
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) has increased its emphasis
on regulating the discharge of toxic substances to the Great Lakes. All air
permits to install incorporate an air toxics review, including modeling if
necessary, and formal determination of Best Available Technology for air toxic
control. The Ohio EPA utilizes three mechanisms to control the wastewater
discharge of toxic substances to the Great Lakes.
The first mechanism is issuing discharge permits to industries and
municipalities which discharge directly to surface waters. The Ohio EPA
utilizes Water Quality Standards and Best Available Treatment Technology to
determine appropriate discharge limits for toxic substances. When information
is not available to determine appropriate discharge limits, dischargers are
required to collect the necessary information to determine appropriate
discharge limits. ,
The second mechanism utilized is through the pretreatment program. The Ohio
EPA requires industries to reduce the discharge of toxic substances to
sanitary sewer systems to an acceptable level. The appropriate pretreatment
level is determined by Water Quality Standards and other factors. Permits to
industry and municipalities are used to enforce and monitor compliance with
established pretreatment levels.
The third mechanism is the Management Plan for Land Application of Sewage
Sludge. This mechanism is used to ensure, among other things, that sludge
land applications will not result in the discharge of toxic substances to the
Great Lakes environment.
The Ohio EPA completed its Surface Water Toxics Strategy in 1988. This
document outlines the principles applied in establishing water quality based
effluent limits for specific toxic chemicals and whole effluent toxicity.
The Ohio EPA has developed the 304(1) short list. The list names industries
and municipalities which are creating stream impairment due to their toxic
discharge. The list contains 25 entities, and more than half of these
entities have discharges which may impact Lake Erie. The Ohio EPA finalized
the list and incorporated toxic control requirements in the permits of these
25 entities by issuing Individual Control Strategies, as required by the Water
Quality Act of 1987.
The Ohio EPA adopted regulations for issuance of permits to industrial users
of POTWs in non-targeted areas under the authority of the pretreatment
program, and issued thirty permits. These permits are used to control the
discharge of toxics and other incompatible wastes to wastewater treatment
plants in communities without pretreatment programs.
56
-------
Hazardous waste Management
Ohio has initiated a technical assistance program through the Ohio Technology
Transfer Organization to assist businesses in waste minimization efforts. The
Ohio EPA received one of ten RCRA Integrated Training and Technology
Assistance grants funded by USEPA to provide hazardous waste management
training and technical assistance to generators of hazardous waste as well as
State employees assigned to hazardous waste management activities. The Ohio
EPA also has funded, and expects to continue to fund, participation in the
Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange. The Ohio EPA is continuing its waste
management alternatives policy, requiring waste minimization plans as a
condition for land disposal approval at off-site disposal facilities. The
Ohio EPA also continues to conduct and participate in educational seminars on
waste minimization.
The RCRA hazardous waste management permits for all land disposal facilities
were issued by the federal deadline of November 1988. Land disposal facility
permits specify updated operating conditions, including improvements in ground
water monitoring. The RCRA permit deadline prompted many facilities to pursue
closure of land disposal units (surface impoundments, landfarms, landfills and
waste piles).
A comprehensive ground water monitoring evaluation is completed for each land
disposal facility at least once every three years. Any violations discovered
in these evaluations result in appropriate enforcement action, and may be
included in special terms and conditions applied to the facility operating
permit.
One of Ohio's more important Superfund sites, Fields Brook, is a tributary to
the Ashtabula River, designated an area of concern by the International Joint
Commission of the United States and Canada because of toxic sediment. The
cleanup of Fields Brook, currently under study by USEPA, will be a significant
component of the Ashtabula River Remedial Action Plan. The cleanup of other
hazardous sites, either Superfund sites or non-Superfund sites, will
contribute to the remediation of Ohio's three other areas of concern, the
Black River, the Cuyahoga River and, to a lesser extent, the Maumee River.
Accidental Discharge of Pollutants
In the event that any discharge from Ohio would affect any other jurisdiction
significantly, appropriate actions will be taken to notify the other
jurisdiction. Ohio has adopted its own contingency plan and is a part of the
Regional/National Contingency Plan. As part of these plans, a 24-hour
telephone number [614-224-0946 or 1-800-282-9378 (in Ohio only)] of the Ohio
EPA Emergency Response Office has been provided to the states adjacent to Ohio.
Atmospheric Deposition
A year long air toxics inventory survey has been completed and is used to
guide air pollutant regulation efforts. Ohio also has initiated air point
source evaluations to determine the presence of toxics in stack emissions for
new sources of air contaminants. Regional air toxics analyses, or "urban
soup" studies, also are underway to study air toxic contaminants effects on
human health and Lake Erie aquatic life. The toxics issue is an integral part
of Ohio's overall effort to evaluate:
-------
0 air emissions,
0 precursors to "acid rain,"
0 nutrient deposition onto Lake Erie, and
0 human health and plant protection criteria.
In addition, eight existing industrial facilities were recently investigated
to determine the presence of toxics so appropriate permit modifications can be
taken. Recent actions have been taken to reduce toxic emissions from the
incineration of municipal sludges which have been found to contain dioxin, and
a new requirement is in place to require air strippers for on-site
contaminated water clean-up projects. New rules are being drafted to regulate
the incineration of infectious waste. Also, the Region v State air directors
have initiated legislative amendments to the Clean Air Act addressing toxic
deposition in the Great Lakes.
Monitoring and Surveillance
Monitoring for Lake Brie toxics loadings will continue to be evaluated in
SPY 90. Present monitoring programs are being expanded to include specific
toxic contaminants, mainly heavy metals and selected chemicals common to
presently used pesticides known to be in wide use within the basin. As point
source permits are renewed, additional monitoring requirements are being
imposed on industrial and municipal dischargers to monitor their discharges
for additional appropriate toxic contaminants. Through these efforts, more
accurate tributary loads to Lake Erie can be determined. During 1986, Ohio
EPA analyzed 35 sediment samples and approximately 40 fish tissue samples for
toxic contaminants in the Lake Erie basin.
With respect to ground water monitoring, results from each RCRA hazardous
waste land disposal facility are reviewed periodically. Considerable ground
water monitoring evaluations (CMEs) were completed in October 1988 for all
land disposal facilities. Inadequate monitoring will result in timely, and
appropriate enforcement actions.
Information Exchange
The Ohio EPA remains active in the various Lake Erie commissions to assure the
rapid and clear exchange of information. Ohio, through its Water Public
Advisory Group (WPAG), has kept interested citizens, agencies and
organizations informed of progress on toxics issues. This group has provided
the Agency valuable information on problem identification. Extensive
information has been gathered and distributed to interested parties in
implementing "right to know" provisions of national legislation (Ohio has the
lead on some of this). Computerized systems presently are being used and
improvements are being made to allow rapid manipulation and dissemination of
toxic information. With improved data availability, future Agreement
implementation steps will be more coordinated and perhaps more productive.
During the coming State fiscal year, several workshops and technical transfer
meetings concerning toxics are being planned to expand the knowledge of key
State employees.
58
-------
Fish Consumption Advisories
The Ohio Department of Health (ODH) is the State agency having authority to
issue fish advisories within Ohio. Such actions have been taken in the past
when human health has been threatened. A coordinated effort has been
established between ODH, Ohio EPA and the Ohio Department of Natural. Resources
to share available information and expertise to assure proper actions are
taken. This will be helped by an anticipated expansion of fish tissue
analysis programs within Ohio. Through the coordinated effort of many
agencies, ODH has issued fish advisories on the lower reach of the Ashtabula
River and the reach of the Black River within the city of Lorain for all fish
species. A fish advisory for two groups of fish, carp and catfish, also has
been issued for the entire portion of Lake Brie within Ohio.
Human Exposure and Health Effects Assessment
The Ohio Department of Health, as part of the Great Lakes Governors Health
Effects Task Force, is cooperating with the International Joint Commission on
human health effects in the Great Lakes. The initial step of this cooperative
effort is to determine the availability of human health effects data bases for
the Great Lakes basin, and the the appropriateness of existing epidemiological
studies. The ODH also has lead responsibility for the assessment of toxics
exposure and effects on human health within Ohio. An initial step in this
assessment is the geographic evaluation of available data. To assist in this
aspect of the assessment, ODH and Ohio EPA are examining the potential use of
the geographic information system presently being used by Ohio EPA. During
SPY 90 this examination will be completed. If the GIS proves to be
advantageous, human health data can be incorporated into the system to
evaluate geographic influence of human health impairment and with addition of
other toxics data bases (e.g., SARA III inventories) and the presence of toxic
contaminants. The Ohio EPA already has developed a risk assessment computer
model which will help determine health effects from new and existing sources
of air pollution.
Great Lakes Water Quality Protection Fund
Ohio, through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, has allocated some
funds to meet its pledge to the Great Lakes Water Quality Protection Fund.
Ohio also has participated in organizational meetings for the corporation
responsible for investing and allocating the fund.
Public Involvement
The public has been involved with Ohio EPA primarily through the Agency's
Public Advisory Groups which work to help formulate policy and program
development and implementation, including toxics issues. Recently, a Public
Involvement Program Task Force made recommendations to improve public
involvement with the Agency. As a result of their recommendations, a new
newsletter is being published, a Budget Priorities Task Force was developed to
review and recommend priorities during the development of Ohio EPA's most
59
-------
recent biennium budget, and a Director's Public Involvement Council is being
formed. In the past, surface water toxics criteria development guidelines
have been reviewed by a Public Advisory Group task force, and such existing
task forces as Surface Water, Emergency Response, Hazardous Waste and others
routinely offer input on various issues, in addition to the Public Advisory
Group Program, Ohio SPA coordinates the State Emergency Response Commission,
Solid Waste Advisory Council and the Inter-Agency Ground Water Advisory
Council, all of which offer the public a voice in State environmental programs
and policy.
Oversight and Implementation
The Ohio EPA through its various program divisions, and in association with
other agencies, has developed various toxics strategy components necessary to
the development of an overall Ohio Toxics Management Strategy. These
components will be evaluated using the principle of the Toxics Agreement and
will form the framework for the Ohio Toxics Management Strategy. As
additional components of the Agency's strategy are developed, they will be
incorporated into this framework.
The Ohio EPA issued the Toxic Substance Control Strategy as required by the
Water Quality Act and submitted it to Region V for concurrence on April 1.
1988. The strategy addresses the control of toxic discharges to Lake Erie as
well as other surface waters. The Ohio EPA utilized this strategy to
determine the appropriate approach to control toxic substance control for a
specific entity. The Ohio EPA incorporated toxic substance control
requirements in most of the major permits issued in the last two years.
*1533P
20 July 89
60
-------
IV STATE AND PROVINCIAL ACTIONS
ONTARIO
In 1971, the Province of Ontario entered into an
Agreement with the Canadian federal government to begin
restoration of the quality of the aquatic environment of the
Great Lakes Basin. The Agreement was revised in 1976, 1982
and 1986 to address surveillance and phosphorous control
needs as well as persistent toxic substances to reflect
progressive changes in the international Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.
Today, under the Canada-Ontario Agreement
Respecting Great Lakes Water Quality (COA), federal agencies
have joined with the provincial ministries of Environment,
Natural Resources, and Agriculture and Food in implementing
provisions of the agreement to protect the ecosystem.
The Memorandum of Understanding on Control of Toxic
Substances in the Great Lakes Environment (MOU) signed in
1988 complements and builds upon the Revised Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1987. Examples of several
provincial programs which contribute to achievement of the
goals of the Agreement and the MOU are described in the
following.
CONTROL OF THE RELEASE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES THROUGH MISA
The Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement
(MISA) is Ontario's initiative for reducing water pollution
from industrial and municipal dischargers. The ultimate goal
of MISA is the virtual elimination of persistent toxic
contaminants from all discharges into Ontario waterways.
Under MISA monitoring regulations, dischargers must
measure the types, concentrations and total amounts of toxic
substances present in their effluents. Audits by the
ministry will ensure this information is accurate and
reflects actual operating conditions in the plant. This
information will be used to formulate an effluent limits
regulation.
Activities to date under MISA have resulted in
promulgation of three monitoring regulations covering the
Petroleum Refining, Organic Chemicals Manufacturing, and Iron
and Steel sectors.
Monitoring regulations are expected to be
promulgated by the end of 1989 for all remaining industrial
sectors, which include the Pulp and Paper, Mining, Inorganic
Chemicals, Metal Casting, Electric Power Generating and
Industrial Minerals sectors. A regulation requiring
monitoring of all Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant discharges
is expected in early 1990.
61
-------
The seven companies in the Petroleum Refining
sector have completed approximately six months of monitoring,
which includes collection and analysis of samples for
conventional pollutants and toxic contaminants. Ontario's 19
organic chemicals manufacturing companies, seven iron and
steel producers, 27 pulp and paper mills, and 22 inorganic
chemicals plants will commence monitoring of direct
discharges beginning in late 1989. Monitoring of discharges
from companies within the remaining industrial sectors and
from municipal sewage treatment plants will begin in 1990.
Effluent limit regulations will be developed beginning in
1991 with the Petroleum Refining sector.
A municipal sewer use control program is being
developed to regulate industries that discharge into
municipal sewer systems. The sewer use control program will
limit discharges from 22 industrial sectors that use
municipal sewer systems. The ministry is planning to release
a position paper on the program in 1990.
Stringent discharge limits have also been set by
MISA for Ontario's nine kraft mills, which discharge an '
estimated 200 tonnes of chlorinated organic compounds daily.
New control orders are scheduled to be issued in July 1989
requiring daily and monthly monitoring of kraft mill
effluents in an effort to improve effluent quality before the
MISA effluent limit regulation for the Pulp and Paper sector
becomes law in 199].
Enforcement activities are being upgraded to ensure
compliance with the regulations and the effluent control
limits specified.
DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS FOR GREAT LAKES AREAS OF
CONCERN
Since 1973, the Water Quality Board of the
International joint Commission (IJC), in its assessment of
Great Lakes water quality, has compiled and updated a list of
"Areas of Concern" where objectives or guidelines established
to protect uses have been exceeded and remedial measures are
required to restore beneficial uses.
In 1985, a new system was adopted by the IJC for
tracking progress in Areas of Concern, representing a logical
sequence for problem solving and resolution. "Remedial
Action Plans" (RAPs) are to be developed for all 42 areas, of
which 17 are located on the Canadian side of the lakes. RAPs
are to include: definition of problem and extent of area
affected; identification of uses impaired; description of
causes of problems and pollution sources; remedial measures
proposed; schedule for implementation and completion;
identification of agencies responsible for remedial measures
and a process for monitoring implementation. A surveillance
and monitoring program is also to form part of the Plan,
62
-------
whereby effectiveness of the remedial program and restoration
of uses may be tracked and confirmed.
In Ontario, a major component of the development of
the RAPs is the public consultation program. Public
consultation serves to inform and stimulate interest in local
water quality issues and provides a basis for generating
broad community support for RAP implementation and generating
the 'political will1 necessary to restore uses in the area.
Input is obtained from the local organized public advisory
councils (municipalities, industries, universities, interest
groups, general public) to better define use goals affected
by water quality and remedial actions for achieving these
goals in each Area of Concern.
Twelve of the 17 Areas of Concern are wholly within
the Province of Ontario and five are shared with the United
States. The RAPs are being developed under the direction of
a RAP Steering Committee and RAP teams for each area include
provincial and federal representatives. Provincial
ministries have provided annual enhanced funding for RAP
development of approximately $2.3 million per year with a
further $2.3 million per year for RAP-related water quality
studies and surveillance. Complementary federal government
contributions to RAP projects amount to $200 thousand per
year. The current schedule anticipates completion of the 17
RAPs by the end of 1991.
Implementation of the RAPs will be based on
achieving the MISA regulations as a minimum with over-riding
water quality considerations directed at restoring impaired
uses for recreation, water supply and aquatic life. To date
remedial options, economic costs and environmental benefits
have been developed for the Bay of Quinte and Hamilton
Harbour. In the other Areas of Concern, problems and their
causes have been defined and efforts are proceeding to
develop remedial options.
Bi-national Remedial Action Plans
The five RAPs which Canada shares with the United
States are: the St. Marys River, St. Clair River, Detroit
River, Niagara River and St. Lawrence River.
In 1985, Governor Blanchard of Michigan and Premier
Peterson of Ontario signed a "Letter of Intent" which
committed both parties to develop joint RAPs for the St.
Marys, St. Clair and Detroit rivers. For the St. Marys and
St. Clair rivers, Ontario is designated the lead agency.
Michigan is the lead agency for the development of the joint
RAP for the Detroit River. Technical data and groundwork for
the three projects will be largely based on the findings of
the Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channels Study (UGLCCS)
published early in 1989. This is a binational study
undertaken to determine the current environmental conditions
63
-------
of the rivers and it has led to recommended measures for
remedial action.
Federal and provincial agencies in Canada have
initiated a RAP for the Canadian side of the Niagara River.
New York State will pursue a separate RAP for the American
side of the river. Consultation between Canada and the
United States will occur at various stages of the development
of the RAP.
In the case of the St. Lawrence River Area of
Concern, Canada and Ontario have agreed with New York State
on the preparation of a joint statement of the problem and
coordination of preparation of the respective RAPs at various
critical stages.
LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
Background and Objectives of the Plan
The declaration of Intent, signed in February, 1987
by the United States E.P.A., Environment Canada, Environment
Ontario and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, committed them to initiate a Lake Ontario
Toxics Management Plan (LOTMP). The goal of the LOTMP is a
"Lake that provides drinking water and fish that are safe for
unlimited human consumption, and that allows natural
reproduction, within the ecosystem, of the most sensitive
native species, such as bald eagles, ospreys, mink and
otters." The objectives of the plan are:
0 reduction in toxic inputs driven by existing and
developing programs;
0 reductions in toxic inputs in geographic areas of
concern (i.e., RAPs and Niagara River Toxics Management
Plan);
e further reductions in toxic inputs driven by lake-wide
analyses of pollutant fate;
e zero discharge (i.e., various activities focusing on
reduction at source rather than end-of-pipe controls).
The Plan includes a chemical-by-chemical approach
to regulatory control and an ecosystem approach to monitoring
the effectiveness of chemical-specific control.
Priority attention is focussed on the eleven
chemicals that have been found to exceed standards or
criteria: PCBs, dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), chlordane, mirex,
mercury, iron, aluminum, DDT and metabolites,
octachlorostyrene, hexachlorobenzene and dieldrin.
64
-------
Current Developments
Formally approved by the four participating
agencies at a public meeting in Rochester, N.Y. in February,
1989, current efforts are being directed at development of
ecosystem objectives and preliminary load reduction targets.
The state of knowledge regarding toxic substances
in Lake Ontario is summarized in the following:
8 Certain toxics bioaccumulate in some Lake Ontario
sportfish to levels that make them unsuitable for
unrestricted consumption by humans.
0 For PCBs, Mirex, Chlordane, Dioxin and Mercury the
edible portions of fish tissue in the larger specimens
of some Lake Ontario sportfish, most frequently salmon
and trout, exceed Canadian and/or U.S. standards for
these five toxics. - .
' For Hexachlorobenzene, DDT and Metabolites, and Dieldrin
the edible portions of fish tissue in the larger
specimens of some Lake Ontario sportfish, most notably
salmon and trout, exceed more stringent, but
unenforceable E.P.A. guidelines for these three toxics.
* Hexachlorobenzene, DDT Metabolites and Dieldrin are also
found in the ambient water column at levels above
standards and criteria designed to protect human
health.
0 No toxics, however, are found in drinking water at
levels above standards designed to protect human health.
Generally accepted direct indicators of the impact of
toxics in Lake Ontario on human health are not presently
available.
Status reports on implementation of the plan are to
be prepared annually commencing in September, 1989. Public
meetings and workshops will be held.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT - CONTROL OF GENERATION, HANDLING
AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE
Ontario's waste management program is regulated
under the Environmental Protection Act. The regulation sets
out a chain of responsibility from waste generation through
transportation and disposal in controlling liquid industrial
and hazardous wastes. A generator register and manifest
system is used to track wastes from source to proper disposal
at a receiving facility. Receiving facilities are operated
under Ministry of Environment Certificates of Approval which
identify wastes acceptable for disposal at each site. The
system is managed by the province, with follow up action,
including enforcement for any irregularity.
65
-------
The storage and movement of PCB wastes as well as
the siting, operations and emissions from mobile PCB
destruction facilities are regulated. This includes
facilities for destruction of PCB contaminated mineral oil.
Comprehensive Funding of Waste Management Facilities
In June, 1987 the Ministry introduced a
Comprehensive Funding Program to assist financially in the
planning, approval and implementation of waste management
facilities. One component of this program provides funding
for industry to develop and implement technologies that will
reduce the quantities of wastes, including hazardous waste,
destined for disposal. This program shares the risk with
industry by providing up to 50 percent of the capital cost to
promote new and innovative technologies.
Control of Dust Suppressants on Poads
On January 1, 1989 the Ministry introduced
amendments to Regulation 309 under the Environmental
Protection Act to ban the use of waste oil as a dust
suppressant on roads in the Province. This step was taken
following extensive review of the environmental impacts
associated with waste oil and is consistent with the
Ministry's intent to promote waste oil re-refining.
Future Waste Management Strategies
A draft strategy entitled "Hazardous Waste
Management Strategy for the 1990's" was considered at a
policy forum in March 1989 and involved the public, industry
and a number of government agencies. The strategy which is
being redrafted for broader public participation proposes
additional design and operating standards for hazardous waste
management facilities, financial assurance for operators, and
steps to ensure that the 4 Rs (waste reduction, reuse,
recycling and reclamation) are implemented. The paper also
addresses the issue of transboundary waste transactions and
steps that the Province can consider to achieve an
import/export balance.
Also in March, 1989 the Minister announced a
provincial goal to achieve 25 percent diversion of the total
waste stream from landfilling and incineration by 1992 and 50
percent by 2000. A wide range of initiatives are now being
developed to help industry and municipalities meet these
targets. Initiatives include financial incentives, technical
assistance, education and new regulations.
Ontario Waste Management Corporation
The Corporation has provided a final assessment of
its recommendations for a hazardous waste treatment system to
be located in West Lincoln Township. The environmental
assessment will be examined by the Province of Ontario as to
-------
its compliance with the Environmental Assessment Act. The
provincial review will be provided for public consideration
and a public hearing concerning the proposal will be
conducted by an independent hearing board.
CLEAN AIR PROGRAM
Regulations are being drafted under the
Environmental Protection Act to reduce loadings of
atmospheric contaminants by imposing limitations on emission
sources based on the toxicity of the substances emitted. A
system of scoring toxicity, protective of human health and
the ecosystem, will determine the degree of emission control
to be applied to produce the lowest level of release of these
substances. The program will address, among other
considerations, the control of toxic substances which may
affect the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING
Monitoring the overall health of the Great Lakes
aquatic ecosystem is a major function of the Canada-Ontario
Agreement (COA). Under the surveillance program, areas of
water quality degradation are investigated and evaluations
conducted on the impact of contaminants of the Great Lakes
aquatic ecosystem. The program measures the effectiveness of
cleanup efforts, warns of emerging problems and tracks down
sources of contamination. The program is responsive to the
framework of the Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan
(GLISP) developed by the Water Quality Board of the
International Joint Commission. Costs of nearshore
surveillance, research and other activities are shared
equally by Canada and Ontario.
Under COA, "nearshore" surveillance activities,
including monitoring discharges from point sources and
tributaries, urban and agricultural drainage and impacts of
shore-based construction activities are conducted by the
Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry of Natural
Resources assesses impacts on fish and fish habitat.
Open lake studies, including those related to
eutrophication, and fish and wildlife contaminants are the
responsibility of Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada.
The Canada-Ontario Surveillance Committee, under
the direction of the COA Board of Review, is responsible for
developing and coordinating the surveillance and monitoring
activities carried out under the Agreement. The surveillance
requirements of the 17 RAP Plans are coordinated through the
Surveillance Committee.
Basin-wide Programs
The province maintains a series of programs
designed to monitor metals, industrial organic substances and
r*na e +• i /•*• *i /^ ^ c in anna^ir' "Hir^a
pesticides in aquatic biota.
67
-------
The largest undertaking is the Sport Fish
Contaminant Testing Program. Since the early 1970's, a wide
variety of fish have been collected from over 1500 lakes and
rivers, including almost 200 locations along the Ontario
shores of the Great Lakes. Fish are tested for a wide
variety of organic and inorganic contaminants, residue levels
are compared to health protection guidelines and, where
warranted, consumption advisories are issued each spring for
the information of the angling public.
The juvenile fish testing program is conducted in
the Great Lakes and selected inland lakes. Residue levels of
metals, industrial organics and pesticides are measured in
young-of-the-year spottail shiners in the Great Lakes and
young perch from inland locations. This program, used to
assess spatial distribution of contaminants, temporal trends
and contaminant source identification, has some distinct
advantages over adult fish testing programs. The exposure
period is precisely known (time of hatch to collection) and
the fish do not move very far from their place of birth.
The third biological contaminant monitoring tool is
Cladophora. This attached filamentous algae is collected
from selected areas of the Great Lakes and is used to assess
temporal trends in contaminant levels.
Stratified water quality sampling is conducted
regularly on 17 major tributaries to estimate annual nutrient
and contaminant loadings. Trend analysis of recent
(1985-1987) phosphorus levels against 1975-1977 records shows
significant phosphorus declines in Lake Ontario tributaries,
but little net change elsewhere. Continuing surveillance is
warranted, especially on the lower lakes tributaries as both
urban and agricultural land uses continue to intensify while
the Great Lakes Phosphorus Reduction Plan is being
implemented.
During 1989, a number of long-term sensing
sites will be established in critical areas for detailed
biomonitoring of the effects of organic contaminants.
"Sensing sites" will serve as monitors with which to gauge
levels of contamination of the lake ecosystem as a whole and
as a testing ground for potentially useful biomonitoring
techniques.
Assessment by the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) of the interrelation of fishery data
bases with water quality and community structure to measure
whole lake responses to pollution and pollution control was
extended in 1987, to studies of critical fish habitats and
fishery population assessment in Areas of Concern.
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY FOR 1989
In June, 1989, the Ontario government issued the
13th annual updated edition of the publication "Guide to
68
-------
Eating Ontario Sport Fish." Some 300,000 copies of this 168
page contaminant advisory book are being distributed free of
charge to Ontario anglers and visitors to the province.
The revised, bilingual "Guide" advises on the
suitability for consumption of fish from over 1,600 locations
in the province, including 198 locations in the Canadian
portion of the Great Lakes. A total of 44 species of fish
have been tested. Contaminants routinely tested for include
mercury, copper, nickel, lead, chromium, arsenic, selenium,
cadmium, zinc, PCB, mirex, DDT, lindane, chlordane,
heptachlor, aldrin, hexachlorobenzene, octachlorostyrene and
toxaphene. Limited numbers of samples can be analyzed for
various chlorinated benzenes and chlorinated phenols,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's), and 2,3,7,8 - TCDD
and other polychlorinated dioxins and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans. Analyses are carried out in Ontario
government laboratories.
The data base for contaminants in Ontario sport
fish now consists of over 100,000 specimens collected over
the 1969-1988 period. Collections are continuing with
approximately 7,500 specimens planned for collection in
1989.
In locations where pollution control measures have
been implemented, the long term monitoring program indicates
significant declining trends in contaminants. Notable
declines of mercury levels in important sport fish in Lake
Superior, Lake St. Clair and the St. Lawrence River have been
observed since waste discharges were controlled in the early
1970's. Declines in PCB, DDT, Chlordane and lindane in fish
from all the Great Lakes have resulted from the
discontinuance of the use of these compounds. Declines of
mirex have also been observed in certain species in parts of
Lake Ontario. The decline of tetra-ethyl lead in fish in the
St. Lawrence River has also been monitored by the program.
CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM NON-POINT SOURCES
The programs and measures for control of non-point
sources of pollution from land-use activities include efforts
to further reduce inputs of phosphorus, sediments, toxic
substances and microbiological contaminants contained in
drainage from urban and rural land, including waste disposal
sites in the Great Lakes System. The preservation of
wetlands is an important related program.
RURAL NON-POINT SOURCES
Toxic Substances
For rural areas a key concern is the introduction
of pesticides from diffuse sources into surface and
groundwater.
-------
Reduction in Pesticides and Integrated Pest Management
A comprehensive and integrated pesticide control
program is being implemented to minimize the exposure of
humans and the natural environment to pesticides, and to
further reduce non-point source inputs to the Great Lakes
Ecosystem. Principal controls include regulations under the
Pest Control Products Act and the Provincial Pesticides Act.
Those pesticides which may be used and the conditions of
sale, storage, use and disposal are regulated. The banning
of alachlor, in Canada, is an example of the control possible
under the legislation.
Supporting these regulations is a licensing and
permit system which prevents excessive and indiscriminate
pesticide use. It also specifies the type and quantity of
pesticide that may be purchased and sets out the conditions
of use. Options are being evaluated for the recycling of
pesticide containers and the collection of unwanted
pesticides.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food provides
cost-shared grants for the construction of facilities
such as nurse tanks and back flow prevention devices for
chemical sprayers which reduce the risk of accidental
discharges of pesticides to surface or groundwater supplies.
A 40 percent grant to a maximum of $7,500.00 is available to
farmers under this program.
Food Systems 2002, a program recently
introduced by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food,
has the goal of reducing pesticides applied to land by 50
percent over a fifteen year period. In combination with
sound land management practices promoted through other
programs, it is anticipated that the loading of pesticides to
surface run-off will be reduced even further than the 50
percent reduction target.
Integrated pest management uses cultural,
physical and biological controls as well as targeted chemical
methods to control pests. Programs are directed toward the
entire pest complex - insects, weeds and disease. Under Food
Systems 2002 the Ontario Pesticide Education Program will
expand to include growers and provide $800,000 annually
toward research on pest management alternatives that will
reduce dependency on chemicals.
Research
A considerable amount of research is being
undertaken by various agencies to examine the fate and
pathways of agricultural chemicals in the environment. One
area of particular interest is the impact of conservation
tillage on the use and fate of chemicals. Since a major push
is underway to promote conservation tillage in Southwestern
Ontario, and since the associated practices bring about
70
-------
changes in the amounts and timing of run-off and percolation
to groundwater of pesticides, related research is receiving
priority attention.
Research being funded by the Ontario Ministry of
the Environment is supportive of the goals of Food System
2002. Projects are being conducted to find alternative
pesticides for those deemed environmentally hazardous and to
determine hazards associated with pesticides in use.
Conventional Pollutants
Pollutant Reduction through Best Management Practices
and Soil Conservation
The Soil and Water Environmental Enhancement
Program (SWEEP) was developed in 1983 as a major component of
the Canadian Federal/Provincial Phosphorus Load Reduction
Plan. The plan relies on the implementation of agricultural
best management practices. The programs are intended to
reduce the loss of sediment in run-off and corresponding
losses of sediment-associated nutrients, chemicals and
bacteria. The Land Stewardship Program, introduced in 1987
originated with a concern by the Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture and Food that the soil resource base be managed
for sustained production over the long term.
Since 1983 expenditures under the Soil and Water
Conservation Grants have amounted to $16 million by the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and approximately $1
million by the Ministry of Environment. These expenditures
have been made for environmental protection under the Ontario
Soil Conservation and Environmental Protection Assistance
Program (OSCEPAP).
In addition, the funds for 200-day manure storage
and for milkhouse waste treatment have been effective in
mitigating such practices as spreading of manure on frozen
ground and reducing run-off losses from feedlots, manure
storages and barn drainage.
The utilization of sludge on foodlands and further
guidelines for use of non-sludge wastes are receiving close
study.
URBAN NON-POINT SOURCES
Toxic Substances and Sewer Use
The updated model sewer use by-law to be introduced
under MISA which was issued in September, 1988 will enable
municipalities to require local industries to reduce toxic
discharges to sewer systems. The by-law sets stringent
discharge limits on metals such as Copper, Cadmium, Nickel
and Zinc; prohibits the discharge of hazardous substances
such as PCB's and toxic pesticides and provides improved
71
-------
administrative procedures to control sewer use through the
application of best available technology.
Under the by-law, significant industrial
dischargers will be required to develop best management
practices (BMP) plans if their sites generate contaminated
surface run-off. The purpose of the plan is to prevent any
unnecessary discharges of contaminated stormwater to storm
sewers. These plans will address such factors as material
storage, housekeeping practices, preventative maintenance
procedures, safety programs, and employee training.
The discussion paper Controlling Industrial
Discharges to Sewers, released in September, 1988, outlines a
program designed to protect water quality by reducing toxic
contaminated industrial discharges to the sewer systems.
Nearly one-third of the wastewater received by major urban
sewage treatment plants is discharged by industry. This
industrial effluent contains most of the metal and toxic
organic compounds found in sewage. Since municipal sewage
treatment plants are not designed to remove toxic pollutants,
many of these contaminants pass untreated or partially
treated into natural water systems.
Under the proposed program the role of
municipalities would be to conduct industrial inventories,
listing all industries discharging to sewer systems and
noting the volume and content of their discharges. At
present, an estimated 18,600 industries discharge to
municipal sewer systems in the province. By controlling
indirect discharges at the source, combined sewer overflows
and by-passing of considerable loadings of toxics to the
Great Lakes system will be reduced.
Pollution Control Planning and Infrastructure
A municipality may apply to the Ministry of the
Environment for a grant to undertake a study to develop a
water pollution control plan. The purpose of a water
pollution control plan is to develop:
* an outline of the nature, causes and extent of pollution
problems from stormwater discharges, combined sewer
overflows and flooding;
0 propose alternative remedial measures, and
0 recommend an implementation program.
Such studies are presently being carried out in
urban centres such as Toronto and St. Catharines.
Under its 'Lifelines' program, the Ministry of the
Environment is working with municipalities to undertake
studies and capital works to correct infrastructure problems
which are associated with older communities where combined
sewers carry domestic and industrial wastes and stormwater.
72
-------
Sewer rehabilitation will minimize the occurrence of toxic
contaminated overflows and stormwater by-passing.
WATERSHED STUDIES
Since 1985, considerable effort has been devoted to
the study and remediation of rural and urban beach pollution
resulting from rural diffuse sources in Ontario. A number of
programs are being carried out in cooperation with
Conservation Authorities with the goal of locating and
remedying bacterial pollution sources impacting on rural
beaches. Remedial plans are being developed for priority
watersheds over three years. As plans are completed by the
Conservation Authorities, additional watershed studies will
be implemented under new agreements with other Conservation
Authorities.
WETLANDS AND THEIR PRESERVATION
The issue of wetlands preservation has received
considerable attention in recent years. In Ontario, south of
the Precambrian Shield, it is estimated that 75 percent of
the wetlands have been lost. The Province proposes to stem
these losses and to take measures to preserve the remaining
wetlands on a priority basis. The Ministry of Natural
Resources has developed a six point program which includes:
wetland inventory and evaluation
land-use planning
the Conservation Lands Act
wetland securing effort
wetland research
communications strategy.
To date, 1982 individual wetlands have been
evaluated using a classification system based on an
assessment of biological, social, hydrologic and special
features of a wetland. Wetlands are classed on a scale from
1 (highest value) to 7 (lowest value).
The protection of wetlands will be done with the
support of a new provincial policy being implemented under
the authority of the Planning Act. In October, 1988 a policy
document was released for public review to be used as a guide
for municipal planning. Municipalities would be required to
consider provincial policy in establishing land use
designations in their Official Plans. As a result, wetlands
of provincial and regional significance will be recognized in
official plans.
The Ministry of Natural Resources has agreements
with Ducks Unlimited and Wildlife Habitat Canada under which
funding is available to enable the acquisition of wetlands,
particularly wetlands threatened with imminent conversion to
other land uses.
73
-------
The Conservation Lands Act of 1988 introduced land
tax incentives to owners of wetlands and other heritage
lands. Up to 100 percent tax rebates will be available to
landowners of class 1-3 wetlands.
Research on wetlands is assisting governments in
setting wetland management priorities. A note-worthy example
is the recent work to analyze the physical and biological
attributes of critical Great Lakes coastal wetlands.
Attention is focussed on these wetland habitats under a joint
Canada-United States initiative to develop a Classification
and Inventory of Great Lakes Aquatic Habitats.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater contamination studies within the Great
Lakes Basin have been for the most part very site specific.
Interest has been focussed on protection of water supplies,
on sources of contamination such as industrial and municipal
waste sites and on their compliance with Ministry of the
Environment legislation and regulatory requirements.
Cumulative effects on regional groundwater quality and the
Great Lakes Ecosystem have not been considered.
Currently, groundwater investigations are limited
to studies along interconnecting channels such as the St.
Clair River at Sarnia and the Niagara River. There is a
general lack of understanding with regard to groundwater
systems within the basin and the effects of groundwater
discharge on stream flow to the Great Lakes.
Under COA, groundwater contamination within the
Great Lakes Basin will be addressed. This will include the
development of an approach to sampling and analysis of
groundwater contamination, continuation of investigation and
remedial projects to address sources of groundwater
contamination together with programs to monitor regional
groundwater quality within the Great Lakes Basin.
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT AND DREDGING
Under COA, polluted sediments and their effects on
the Great Lakes System will be identified and the information
evaluated in relation to the effectiveness of remedial
measures to alleviate the problem. The following specific
objectives will be addressed:
e development of a standardized assessment procedure for
contaminated sediment which incorporates the physical
and chemical and biological evaluation of sediments
together with assessment of the biological implications
of the associated contaminants;
0 development of guidelines (numerical criteria) for the
assessment of sediments, based on concentrations of
74
-------
metals, organic contaminants and their impact on aquatic
macroinvertebrates and fish, and
0 evaluation of remedial options for the management and
restoration of contaminated sediments including but not
limited to source abatement and dredging sediment
treatment technologies.
Guidelines under development for the evaluation of
sediment must provide the basis for determining when
sediments can be considered clean, what levels of
contaminants are acceptable in the short term and when
contamination is sufficiently severe to warrant significant
remedial action. These guidelines will be used in
formulating Pemedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management
Plans.
A policy paper describing options for the placing
of fill materials in the nearshore zone of the lakes has been
developed for guidance purposes.
POLICY ON PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Protecting the environment is everybody's concern.
Environment Ontario has developed a comprehensive
public consultation policy that embodies the government's
commitment to involving the public in the environmental
planning process. The policy affords new and expanded
opportunities for public involvement in the review and
development of the ministry's environmental protection
programs.
Public consultation is an interactive, or two-way
process essential for people to become better informed about,
and better able to help resolve environmental issues.
Consultation affords people the opportunity to have an
influence on the decision- making process.
Environment Ontario consults with the public
through:
0 local community liaison committees
0 public meetings
0 discussion papers
• symposia
0 informal contacts with ministry staff
* formal public hearings
0 advisory committees.
The policy promotes five central principles and
emphasizes:
0 consensus building;
e an objective, open and fair consultation process be
carried out in a responsible manner;
-------
0 opportunities will be identified for public
participation in the consultation process;
0 the results of public consultation will be incorporated
in decision-making;
* participants will be informed as to how their
involvement affected the ministry's decisions.
Further information on the application of the
policy is available from the Ministry of the Environment.
76
-------
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
GREAT LAKES TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL AGREEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The Toxic Substances Control Agreement was signed by the Governors
of the eight Great Lakes states in May of 1936, and in June, 1988,
by the Premiers of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the
Agreement established a framework for coordinating regional action
in controlling toxic pollutants entering the Great Lakes System.
This spring Governor Robert P. Casey became the first Pennsylvania
Chief Executive to join the Council of Great Lakes Governors.
Pennsylvania welcomes the opportunity to become a full partner in
the implementation of the Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) to ensure a cleaner Great Lakes ecosystem.
The Agreement and MOU contain certain principles, commitments, and
initiatives that are to be undertaken by the signatory
jurisdictions. Our programs strive to upheld the commitments
and goals of this agreement through the imp.ementation of strict
regulatory programs which emphasize the use of best available
technology, human health and aquatic life based standards,
and an agressive enforcement strategy. The following pages
summarize activities from the past year.
CLEAN WATER: AN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE
Pennsylvania's water quality standards are codified in Chapter 93
and portions of Chapter 95 of the Department of Environmental
Resources Rules and Regulations. They are designed to implement
the requirements of Section 5 and ^OS of Pennsylvania's Clean
Streams Law and Section 303 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C.A. sl313). Furthermore, Section 93.2(b) of the Standards
provide that where interstate or international agencies under an
interstate compact or international agreement establish more
stringent water quality standards regulations applicable to the
waters of the Commonwealth than in the regulations, the more
stringent standards will apply. Section 303(c)(l) of the Federal
Act requires that states periodically, but at least once every
three years, review and revise when necessary, their water quality
standards.
Pennsylvania completed its most recent triennial water quality
standards review with publication of final rulemaking in the
Pennsylvania Bulletin of March 11, 1989. These revisions concluded
a review of several statewide issues. Of special significance to
the Great Lakes Toxics Substances Control Agreement was the
adoption of a comprehensive Toxic Substances regulation. The new
regulation incorporates by reference the Department's water quality
Toxics Management Strategy. The strategy includes water quality
criteria for the priority pollutants and detailed guidance on the
use of these criteria in the development of wastewater effluent
77
-------
limitations. The regulation also addresses scientific procedures
for criteria development, a risk management level for carcinogens,
analytical procedures for criteria implementation, appropriate
design conditions for toxics and the use of effluent toxicity
testing as a basis for limiting the discharge of toxic substances.
The revisions to the Standards also include a change to the
protected use designation for portions of Erie Harbor. The change
added water contact sports as a protected use to the entire Erie
Harbor and Presque Isle Bay area except the Harbor basin and
central channel demarcated by the U.S. Coast Guard with buoys and
channel markers.
PERMITTING
A. Point Source Toxics Management Strategy
As briefly discussed under Clean Water..., the Department has
incorporated a Toxics Management Strategy into its NPDES
permitting program for industrial and municipal p int source
dischargers.
Water Quality Oriented Approach - Since water
quality protection is the primary thrust of this
strategy, some discussion on the roles of
Pennsylvania's existing water quality criteria and
EPA's proposed water quality criteria is
warranted. The water quality criteria contained
in Chapter 93 of the Department's regulations were
developed based on best available scientific data
and information relating to human health and
aquatic life protection.
EPA has developed proposed instream criteria and
threshold levels for the priority pollutants
pursuant to guidelines contained in Section 30Ma)
of the Clean Water Act, using the same basic types
of data and rationale. Aquatic life criteria and
threshold levels are based on relevant
toxicological studies. Human health-related
criteria are based on relevant toxicological and
epidemiological studies.
Dealing With Known or Suspected Carcinogens and
Related Health Impacts - An additional
consideration in the development of the Section
30
-------
to 10~B for each carcinogen for the protection of
human health. For the purpose of its strategy, the
Department specifies a cancer risk level of 10~*
(one in one million) in establishing water quality
criteria for carcinogens.
As more is learned about the occurrence, health
and aquatic life impacts, treatability, and
environmental fate of toxic pollutants, this
information will be incorporated into the
strategy. This approach Mill allow for the most
effective utilization of scientific data and
information in dealing with priority pollutants
and other toxics.
During 1988-89 the Department began a long-term
program to evaluate point source dischargers on a
watershed basis, which takes into account the
potential interactions of groups of discharges on
stream segments and in the watershed as a whole.
A comprehensive water quality modeling procedure
has been developed to carry out multiple-discharge
wasteload allocation (WLA) evaluations. The ULA
analysis can be done either in a "screening" mode
(to scope out potential groupings of dischargers)
or in a "detailed analysis" mode (for developing
WLAs and permit limitations).
In addition to the above, revisions have been made
to the manner in which EPA's recommended water
quality criteria for toxics are converted into
permit limitations. These revisions more
accurately focus on the short-term (acute) and
longer-term (chronic) impacts of toxics in the
aquatic environment.
The Department has also begun incorporating the
concept of whole-effluent toxicity testing (WETT)
and toxicity reduction into its NPDES permitting
program. The use of WETT is expected to enhance
reduction of toxic impacts to aquatic life.
B. Industrial Waste Pretreatment
As of mid-1989, eighty-five (85) municipal sewage
systems (statewide), including the City of Erie, have
developed local industrial waste pretreatment programs.
These local programs are intended to reduce or
eliminate problems associated with pass-through of
toxic pollutants to receiving waters and contamination
of sewage sludge.
Pennsylvania has not received formal delegation of
pretreatment program responsibility from EPA.
79
-------
Coordination is occurring with EPA Region III, however,
to ensure that municipalities with pretreatment
problems are properly regulated.
C. Air Toxics Control
This spring, along with the other Great Lakes States,
Pennsylvania signed the Great Lakes States Air
Permitting Agreement. The Department currently has a
skeleton program in place. Full implementation is
dependent upon the availability of additional
resources. The Department will continue to develop its
program to control air toxics emissions from
Pennsylvania sources. A recent regulatory change has
clarified the intent to require the reduction of air
toxics from new sources to the maximum extent possible.
As a result of recently developed Departmental policy,
several heavy metals and chlorinated compounds from
municipal incinerators and resource recovery facilities
must meet tzringent ambient requirements thereby
potentially reducing their impact on the Great Lakes.
Regulations are also contemplated for the control of
air emissions, including air toxics, from hospital
waste incinerators.
Resource limitations currently prevent dispersion
modeling of air toxics from Pennsylvania sources to
determine their potential to impact the Great Lakes.
Special permit conditions to minimize the potential
impacts on the Great Lakes cannot be considered at this
time.
ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS
Pennsylvania's regulations require that any spill or accidental
discharge that enters or threatens to enter surface or underground
waters must be reported immediately to the Department of
Environmental Resources. The Department maintains 2
-------
persistant adverse aquatic impacts as hazardous air pollutants and
controlling the emissions of those substances from existing as well
as new sources.
Pennsylvania's point source toxics management strategy is intended
to be "technology-forcing" by requiring dischargers to carry out
toxics reduction evaluations and to reduce effluent toxicity
impacts.
This strategy, in combination with Pennsylvania's toxic and
hazardous waste management/cleanup program, should ensure
continuing progress in reduction of pollutant loading to both
surface and ground water.
The following Table summarizes the levels of pollution control
applicable to point source dischargers, under the Federal Clean
Water Act and Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law and Regulations.
Zero Discharge 101(a) (1) CWA
of Pollutants
Anti-Degradation (EPA) ^0 CFR 131.IS
Anti-Degradation
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Within the last year, Pennsylvania has placed into law two major
pieces of legislation and initiated regulatory programs there under
to strengthen our ability to regulate waste disposal and toxic
waste cleanups in Pennsylvania.
Municipal Waste Planning. Recycling, and Waste Reduction ftct -
(Act-101)
The Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling, and Waste Reduction Act
provides for the planning, processing, and disposal of municipal
waste. Host importantly, this Act stresses the reduction and reuse
of waste materials reducing the potential for groundwater and
surface water contamination. The Act also requires the Department
of Environemntal Reosurces to develop guidance for Household
Hazardous Waste programs.
Ha2ardous Sites Cleanup Act - (Act IPS)
The Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act C"ct 108) was enacted by the State
in October, 1988. The Act providts for the study and remediation
of hazardous waste sites in Pennsylvania.
Under Act 108, the State Hazardous Sites Cleanup Program, in ,
cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
superfund effort,is in the process of evaluating potential
hazardous waste sites to identify those which pose a risk or
potential risk to human health and the environment. Those sites
posing a risk or potential risk can then be remediated under
authority of Act 108, the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA" or the Federal
"Superfund" Act), or other appropriate State laws. As of flay,
1989, the State Hazardous Sites CLeanup Program had identified
approximately 2,335 potential hazardous waste sites within
Pennsylvania. Of that number, approximately 87 potential sites are
located within the Lake Erie watershed. The State is currently
involved in the detailed study and remediation at two Federal
superfund sites within the Lake Erie watershed. A third superfund
site (located less than 100 meters from Lake Erie on Presque Isle
penninsula) was remediated in 1985 by the State and removed by EPA
from the Federal superfund list in early 1989.
The Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act also gives the State authority to
quickly respond to spills and other environmental emergencies, and
to take interim action to stabilize sites where releases of
hazardous substances are occurring or are imminent.
Act 108 provides additional authority to the state so that the
permitting of commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities can be made more efficient and streamlined.
Municipal Waste Regulation
In April, 1988, the Commonwealth completed a comprehensive revision
of its existing municipal waste regulations under the authority of
Act 97 - Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act. These
regulations represent 6 years of Departmental effort and public
82
-------
participation. By implementing these regulations, the Department
has instituted state-of-the-art landfill design and monitoring
practices providing for the highest degree of environmental
protection possible.
Infectious Waste - (Act 93)
In July of 1988, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania implemented a
licensing program for all infectious waste transporters. The
legislation also requires the Department of Environmental Resources
to develop a manifest system for the transportation of infectious
waste. We are currently developing a regualtion package to fully
implement this legislation.
Hazardous Uaste Management
Pennsylvania has final authorization under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) from the U.S. EPA for
implementation of the state hazardous waste program.
Pennsylvania's Hazardous waste program under the Solid Waste
Management Act of 1930, Act 97, addresses ar1 permits the
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Regulations
adopted under Act 97 also cover generators, transporters, and
hazardous waste manifest requirements. The Department is currently
proposing additional regulations to address recycling facilities.
Waste Management Information System
The Department of Environmental Resources has developed a
computerized database management and tracking system to monitor the
solid and hazardous waste activities in Pennsylvania. The system
consists of eight modules designed to track waste transporting and
disposal throughout the Commonwealth.
The groundwater monitoring module of this system enables the
Department to automate monitoring data from reports and efficiently
track water quality at waste management facilities in Pennsylvania.
Data from hundreds of monitoring wells and private supply wells
will be routinely inspected with the help of this system. The
Department's enforcement efforts will be greatly enhanced by the
capabilities provided by this system.
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
A one time air toxics emissions inventory resulted in the
generation of limited data, some of which is useful in the
implementation of the Great Lakes Toxics Substance Control
Agreement. This data has not been verified. In addition, a
preliminary analysis was completed of local ambient impacts for a
small number of prioritized facilities. The available emission
data for IJC pollutants of concern which are emitted from the
Northwest quadrant of Pennsylvania was summarized and transmitted
to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
The Commonwealth continues to strongly support Acid Rain
legislation. Approximately $80,000 per year is spent for
83
-------
analytical work to analyze samples collected by agency staff in the
Comprehensive Acid Rain Monitoring Network (CARMN). Future
benefits in the reduction of Great Lakes air toxics impacts from
Pennsylvania sources can be expected by continued efforts to
develop an air toxics program for existing sources.
MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE
The Air Quality program continues to develop the capability to
conduct ambient sampling and analysis for specific air toxics
pollutants. Staff limitations have prevented significant progress.
However, some pollutants of interest to the Great Lakes are
routinely analyzed from selected Hi-Vol particulate filters. This
data is readily available to be shared with the Great Lakes states.
A limited urban air toxics monitoring project is expected to begin
in the near future. The extent and magnitude of the project is
uncertain. This project could generate more data on ^ubstances
which are likely to cause persistant adverse aquatic impacts. Any
such pertinent data will be shared with the Great Lakes states.
The Water Quality program conducts routine reconnaissance
inspections on all dischargers on the Basin. In addition, each
"major" discharger receives an annual Compliance Sampling
Inspection or Compliance Evaluation Inspection. Samples are
analyzed for all parameters contained in the NPDES permit.
Pennsylvania currently operates six (6) routine, ambient surface
water quality monitoring stations in the Lake Erie Drainage basin
as part of the Water Quality Network (WON). Two (2) are located in
Lake Erie, one (1) is in Presque Isle Bay, and three (3) are
located on tributaries (Conneaut Creek, East Branch Conneaut Creek,
and Twelvemile Creek). All stations are monitored monthly for pH,
temperature, dissolved oxygen (field measurements), and eighteen
(18) parameters which include conventional parameters and heavy
metals. Lake level or stream flow data are obtained at the time of
sample collection. All data is input to the EFA STORET system.
Benthic macroinvertebrates (fishfood organisms) are sampled
annually at the tributary stations in order to obtain another
indicator of water quality conditions. Plankton samples are
collected annually at one lake station and from Presque Isle Bay.
Sampling for fish tissue contaminants is currently being rotated
through the WQN stations, and each station will be sampled about
once every five (5) years. Fish Tissue parameters include PCS,
chlorinated pesticides and heavy metals.
INFORMATION EXCHANGE
The Air Quality program has entered pertinent data on air toxics
inventory and sampling results in the National Air Toxics
Information Clearinghouse (NATICH). Pertinent inventory emission
data was shared with the Great Lakes signatory states. Also, Air
Quality staff have attended standing committee meetings to develop
out detailed work strategies to implement the Great Lakes Toxic
84
-------
Substance Control Agreement. This effort resulted in the signing
of an Air Permitting agreement among the states.
See additional information under Fish Consumption Advisories.
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORIES
The Commonwealth has been actively participating in the effort to
develop not only a common fish consumption advisory for Lake Erie
waters but also common sampling protocols and advisory development
and issuance methodologies for the Great Lakes basin. To this end,
members of Pennsylvania's interagency work group on fish tissue
contaminants have been attending meetings of the Great Lakes Fish
advisory Task Force committee and has a representative on the
toxicology subcommittee.
A major outcome of this process was the issuance of a common fish
consumption advisory for Lake Erie. The advisory was initially
rel .-ased by the state of Michigan in January, 1987, and followed-up
by a Pennsylvania press release on February 3, 1987.
Our participation in the process is continuing. The most recent
direction is consideration of a "market basket" approach in which
the risk of consuming Great Lakes sport fish would be compared to
that of eating commercially available fish. Funding for
determining contaminant levels in commercial fish is currently
being sought.
The Commonwealth continues to sample Great Lakes
sport fish for fish tissue contaminants. Sampling is conducted as
part of our Water Quality Network routine program and the Great
Lakes Fish Monitoring Program (GLFMP). Both programs analyze for
contaminants in FDA standard fillets in order to protect public
health. Both programs sample, to the extent possible,
recreationally important species. Coho salmon or rainbow trout
(steelhead) are sampled for the GLFMP, while Pennsylvania's program
has historically concentrated on yellow perch. Other species may
also be sampled as funding allows.
GREAT LAKES PROTECTION FUND
On February 26, 1989, along with other Great Lakes Governors,
Governor Casey signed the necessary documents creating the Great
Lakes Protection Fund (G.L.P.F.). The G.L.P.F. is a $100 million
endowment dedicated to help eliminate the threat of toxics
contaminating the Great Lakes. Pennsylvania's share is $1.5
million.
This year's budget request includes $500,000 for the first year's
contribution. A similar request will be made for each of the next
two years. Proposed legislation was introduced by the Pennsylvania
General Assembly in May, 1989, authorizing the Commonwealth to
participate in the fund.
85
-------
PUBLIC INVQLVErgNT
An integral part of the Department's responsibilities rests with
DER's public participation opportunities. Following are brief
descriptions of five categories of public participation
opportunities within the Department.
I — Complaints and Reporting; Employees of the Department gather
information about the projects they work on in a variety of ways.
The public participates in these occurrences when they call or
write to one of the Department's offices concerning possible
violations, spills, or other items. These inquiries are extremely
valuable to the Department and DER makes every effort to encourage
this type of public contact.
11 — Requests for Information; The Office of Public Liaison,
located at DER'?. headquarters in Harrisburg, is staffed by
professionals w-.o are responsible for coordinating departmental
response to inquiries involving any public interest. Also, the
responsibility for administering environmental protection programs
within DER rests primarily within six geographic regions. Each
regional office has a Community Relations Coordinator who develops,
implements, and evaluates programs designed to promote
communication, citizen participation, and understanding.
Ill — Right to Public Access of Information; DER has always made
public documents available for review. The Department is in the
process of formalizing this policy in writing. This policy will
outline those documents which the public has a right to access.
IV — Public Involvement in the Regulation and Permitting
Processes; Public participation opportunity in DER is many times
required by regulation. Common to each opportunity is the
importance of the public to not only be informed of Department
decisions but also having the chance to comment on and influence
these decisions. Public comment periods are provided throughout
various permitting stages. This allows for additional input before
permit decisions are made. Public hearings and public meetings
also allow the opportunity for DER to gather and respond to
additional input concerning permit applications. After a permit
decision is made, there is still an opportunity for public input
through appeals. The Environmental Hearing Board conducts hearings
and issues opinions, orders, and adjudications upon appeals of
final actions of the Department.
V — Advisory Committees and Roundtables; The Department of
Environmental Resources also affords the public opportunities to
advise the Department by membership on advisory boards and regional
roundtables. The Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) reviews all
environmental laws of the Commonwealth and makes appropriate
suggestions for their revision, modification, and codification.
The CAC also advises the Department, as requested, and makes
recommendations for the improvement of the work of the Department.
86
-------
The council is composed of 19 members, 18 of whom are members of
the public (the 19th member is the Secretary of Environmental
Resources). The Environmental Quality Board formulates, adopts,
and promulgates rules and regulations for programs administered by
the Department. The board is composed of twenty-one members,
including five members of the Citizens Advisory Council. The
remainder of the membership consists of representatives of various
state agencies and the General Assembly.
On the regional level, each Environmental Protection office
coordinates the operation of a citizens roundtable. Roundtable
memberships include citizens from various backgrounds, including
environmental groups, representatives of public interest groups,
the business community, and others. These roundtables provide a
forum for ideas, and promote input and response to DER and its
programs. These roundtables are also very effective in
helping participants understand more fully the activities of the
Department.
GROUNDUATER
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) has
been aggressively involved in ground water quality protection since
the early 1960's. Our programs rely heavily on the development and
implementation of regulations and permits to prevent and abate
pollution from all major sources where disposal, treatment, and
storage of waste materials occur. We are also committed to the
inclusion of ground water quality considerations in our
environmental planning.
The Department has established a Ground Water Quality Task Force
which is presently drafting a Ground Water Protection Policy. The
Ground Water Protection Policy will serve as an umbrella program
for all DER activities involved in the areas of ground water
quality protection and management. A Ground Water Quality
Monitoring Strategy, which is in final draft form, will integrate
the Department's monitoring activities to meet both ambient and
compliance monitoring objectives when implemented.
DER is also participating in the Federal Underground Storage Tank
Program. Legislation to regulate both underground and above-ground
storage tanks is being considered. There is no general ground water
quality management legislation being considered in Pennsylvania.
To improve the effectiveness in protecting the state's ground water
resource, work has progressed on a comprehensive ground water
monitoring and data assessment program. In the early 1980's, the
state was divided into ^78 ground water basins which were
prioritized based on factors such as ground water use, land use,
and environmental sensitivity. A typical ground water basin may
include S5 monitoring locations. As part of the Fixed Station
Monitoring Network (FSN) Program, the top sixteen ground water
basins are currently being monitored quarterly for up to S
-------
was initiated in 19B8 is the Ambient Ground Water Quality Survey
Program. This consists of two-time sampling of the lower priority
ground water basins which did not qualify for the FSN Program.
Ground Mater data from these monitoring programs are input to the
federal STORE! system. This data is used for conducting quality
trend analyses, program evaluations, permitting and facility site
evaluations, and to fulfill systematic reporting requirements such
as Section 305(b) obligations under the Federal Clean Water Act.
-------
QUEBEC
Quebec became party to the Memorandum of Understanding on Control
of Toxic Substances In the Great Lakes Environment (H.O.U.) on June 13,
1988, when Premier Robert Bourassa signed the Memorandum In Montreal In
both Us French and English official versions, together with Premier
David Peterson of Ontario.
Quebec took a number of steps of regulatory, administrative and
legislative nature 1n order to facilitate its implementation, and
achieve domestic environmental objectives in conjunction with the other
M.O.U. parties.
Industrial pollution control slrateov
Most noteworthy is the development of a new industrial pollution
control strategy predicated on a system of mandatory pollution abate-
ment certificates. This strategy is an Integrated, multi-media effort
designed to clean up 75% of toxic pollution from industrial sources in
Quebec.
New stringent legislation, bill 99, was enacted for this purpose
In December, 1988, after months of consultation with industrial, en-
vironmental and municipal representatives. Under this new legislative
framework, all designated Industrial and municipal facilities will have
to obtain a pollution abatement certificate which will compel its
holder to meet specific abatement and control standards for discharges
in the air, water and soil. Fines of up to 1 million $/day and prison
terms of up to 18 months can apply 1n case of violations, as provided
in the regulations that will be forthcoming. The pollution abatement
certificates will be in force for a 5-year period in the case of exist-
ing facilities, and a 10-year period in the case of new sources. These
certificates will have to be renewed unless the industrial facility
installs a zero-discharge technology.
It is the intention of the Ministry of the Environment of Quebec
to factor in this process, the abatement objectives agreed upon under
the M.O.U.
Quebec's industrial pollution control strategy has targeted 196
industrial facilities on a priority basis. These priority sources
include pulp and paper mills, mining operations, metallurgical works
and the chemical industry. The second phase of the strategy will cover
436 facilities in the same industrial sectors plus the petroleum in-
dustry and the electro-plating industry. Most of these pollution
sources are located along the St. Lawrence River, and its tributaries.
-39-
-------
Hassena/Cornwall Area of Concern
Quebec has, since 1986, expressed concern with respect to the
P.C.B. and mercury pollution originating from the Massena, N.Y. and
Cornwall, Ontario area. This area of concern 1s amongst the 42 areas
of concern recognized by the International Joint Commission. It is
located in the St. Lawrence River, just a few kilometers upstream from
the Que"bec/Ontario/New York State border 1n the River.
Quebec 1s concerned with this source of pollution because of the
very toxic nature of the pollutants involved, because of the fact that
the sediments of the St. Lawrence River contain significant quantities
of PCBs, and because monitoring deta reveals high levels of PCB's and
mercury in biota and the ecosystem downstream from the Massena/Cornwall
area, within the territory of Quebec.
The Government of Quebec has raised this issue directly with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and with the environmental autho-
rities of the State of New York and the Province of Ontario. The Issue
has also been raised at meetings of the Parties under the 1987 Protocol
to the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
A staff person from the Ministry of Environment of Quebec has been
assigned to this Issue on a full-time basis. Quebec has also partici-
pated at administrative and legislative hearings on this problem, and
was involved in the development of the RAPs for the Massena/Comwall
areas of concern. As a result, Lac Saint-Francois, located within the
territory of Quebec downstream from Hassena and Cornwall, was included
in the area to be examined within the framework of the remedial action
plan.
Canada/Quebec Agreement on the St. Lawrence River
During 1987 and 1988, Quebec has sought 100 millions $ of Federal
funding to help with the clean-up of the St. Lawrence River. In June,
1988, the Federal Minister of Environment committed 110 millions $ of
Federal funds over 5 years for that purpose. A Canada/Quebec Agreement
on the St. Lawrence River was signed on June 8, 1989, in order to
coordinate federal and provincial efforts designed to monitor, clean-
up and conserve the St. Lawrence River ecosystem. Special emphasis is
to be put on the reduction of toxic pollution from the 50 largest
polluters of the waters of the River. These abatement objectives will
be implemented thought Quebec's new industrial pollution control stra-
tegy outlined above.
-90-
-------
St. Lawrence River Conservation and Development nro.iect
The conservation and development of the St. Lawrence River was
Identified as Quebec's demonstration project of Economy-Environment
Integration. This 1s a multlstakeholder effort Involving representa-
tives from Government, Industry, municipalities, environmental groups
and acadenla, which 1s expected to deliver a likewise multistakeholder
program; of action designed to conserve the river's ecosystem and yet,
at the same time, enhance Us economic and environmental potential
within a perspective of sustainable development. The recommendations
made by the different multlstakeholder taskforces assigned within this
process, are presently (summer 1989) being reviewed by the Quebec
Government.
Air quality
Amendments to Quebec's Air quality regulations are presently being
developed In order to cover a greater range of air pollutants, includ-
ing air toxics. The regulations are expected to be proposed in the
Official Gazette 1n early 1990. These amendments will be coordinated
with the implementation of the new industrial pollution control strate-
gy-
Clean Technologies
As part of Quebec's efforts to foster the concept of sustainable
development, the Government 1s putting great emphasis on the promotion
of clean technologies. This refers to the development of non-polluting
industrial production techniques instead of the usual reliance on end-
of-pipe abatement technologies. A compendium of clean industrial tech-
nologies used and developed in Quebec, has been prepared. Examples of
success stories have been disseminated 1n order to encourage industries
to opt for clean technologies. Quebec's Industrial Research Center has
also put forward a new program designed to help the development of
new, efficient, clean Industrial technologies.
Integrated Waste Management
The Government of Quebec has made public a new integrated waste
management strategy with an objective to reduce 50% of the volume of
solid waste generated in Quebec by year 2000. This strategy depends
heavily on recovery and recycling of household and commercial waste. A
100 millions $ fund made up entirely of funds contributed by Quebec's
manufacturing and retail industry, will be used to help local authori-
ties to establish a system of curbside collection.
-91-
-------
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL AGREEMENT AND
THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
WITH ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
July 13, 1989
This report summarizes the activities which the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources has continued or initiated that
meet the requirements of the Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control
Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding on Control of Toxic
Substances with Ontario and Quebec. Activities are listed under
the individual sections of the Toxic Substances Control Agreement
and the Memorandum of Understanding. This summary reports recent,
ongoing and planned activities. Further details about current
activities and future plans are available upon request.
92
-------
WATER
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has revised its Water
Quality Antidegradation policy. Rules became effective in March
1989. Revised regulations establish: an antidegradation
classification system for all surface waters of. Wisconsin,
procedures for determining whether or not a proposed new or
increased discharge is subject to antidegradation policy, and
procedures for determining effluent limits for those discharges
that are subject to the policy. The antidegradation rules contain
a "Great Lakes Initiative" which protects the Great Lakes and their
tributaries from the impacts of persistent, bioaccumulating toxic
substances. Effluent limits for dischargers to the Great Lakes
will be determined such that any mass increase in a substance with
a bioaccumulation factor greater than 250 will be considered a
significant lowering of water quality and prohibited unless the
lowering of water quality is necessary to accommodate important
economic and social development. There are 21 substances that are
regulated for bioaccumulation.
PERMITTING
The Department has also developed surface water quality criteria
for toxic substances and procedures for calculating effluent limits
for toxic substances discharged to surface waters. The Department
is currently implementing the rules. One rule establishes
numerical standards to protect fish and aquatic life, wildlife and
human health from exposure to about 100 toxic substances. The
other rule requires point sources to meet effluent limits that
insure the water quality standards are met in surface waters. It
establishes the procedures for how effluent limits will be
determined and provides for biomonitoring and bioassay procedures.
DNR is reviewing each permit individually so effluent needs will
be tailored for specific dischargers.
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Wisconsin is currently completing a Hazardous Waste Capacity Plan
to identify how it will meet its hazardous waste management needs.
This plan is required of each state by the Superfund law. The
governor of each state must submit a plan to EPA certifying that
the state has adequate capacity to manage all hazardous wastes that
will be produced over the next 20 years. Hazardous waste reduction
and recycling will be important as Wisconsin determines how it will
handle hazardous waste. The state operated a pilot program from
1986 through 1988 to provide information and education to small
quantity hazardous waste generators. The success of that program
has encouraged the DNR to conduct a similar program for waste
reduction. Wisconsin DNR has received a RCRA Integrated Training
and Technical Assistance (RITTA) grant from EPA. This grant will
be used to develop a hazardous waste reduction technical assistance
pilot project to help industries minimize waste. It will also be
used to provide training to DNR personnel on hazardous waste
minimization plus extend an outreach effort to generators.
93
-------
In its 1987-1989 budget bill, the Wisconsin state legislature
requested that the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Development submit a report describing legislative
and administrative approaches through which the state could foster
a reduction in the use of hazardous and toxic materials. This
report was completed and proposed a joint University of Wisconsin
Extension and DNR technical assistance and outreach program. The
Wisconsin legislature is likely to consider legislation for such
a program this fall.
Wisconsin also has an annual Governor's Award which recognizes
achievements by Wisconsin industries and institutions to reduce and
manage hazardous wastes.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources* hazardous waste
management program has responsibility for the administration of a
regulatory program equivalent to the federal program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This program includes
standards and requirements applicable to those who produce
hazardous waste and to those who manage (treat, store or dispose
of) hazardous waste in Wisconsin. Authority for inspection of
facilities, enforcement for violations, and a complex facility
siting and licensing program are provided.
In addition, the hazardous waste program is responsible for
administering responsible party clean up of contamination at
regulated hazardous waste facilities. These clean up projects
involve cases of both groundwater and soil contamination. In the
case of one project, U.S. Wormald, Inc. (Ansul Fire Protection) in
Marinette, arsenic contamination of sediments in Green Bay are
being investigated. The hazardous waste program has also been
given responsibility for the regulation of household hazardous
waste, PCBs and waste oil.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE MID REPAIR
Special state programs exist to manage abandoned containers, leaky
underground storage tanks, spills and the investigation and clean
up of contamination sites.
The Department participates in federal Superfund projects.
Wisconsin has two Superfund sites in the Sheboygan Harbor Area of
Concern. At the Sheboygan River and Harbor Superfund site, the
Remedial Investigation is nearly complete. A potentially
responsible party is examining the treatability of PCBs in
sediment. Once this information is known, action will be taken to
remedy the PCB problem. A Superfund Remedial Investigation for the
Kohler Landfill Site is ongoing in the Sheboygan Area of Concern.
More intensive investigation of contamination in soils and
groundwater is taking place at the facility. It is anticipated
that a Feasibility Study will be produced within the next two
years.
94
-------
The Moss American Superfund Project on the Little Menomonee River
is located in the Milwaukee River Watershed, which drains to Lake
Michigan. Creosote has been found in the sediments of a five mile
segment of the stream. This Super fund site is in the Remedial
Investigation phase and a Feasibility Study should be complete next
year. The federal Superfund Trust Fund is paying for .the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study at this site.
Wisconsin DNR also conducts a state version of the federal
Superfund program, utilizing the Environmental Repair Fund (ERF).
In the Great Lakes basin, the DNR is working with several
potentially responsible parties to investigate PCB contamination
in Cedar Creek, a river which drains to the Milwaukee River and
Lake Michigan.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
The Department has been partially successful in promulgating
adminstrative rules to address dredging projects where in-place
toxic pollutants are found. One rule has been implemented and is
being used to coordinate dredge projects. Another rule addressing
the disposal of contaminated dredge material and confined disposal
facilities has been stalled because of legislative concerns. In
addition, a legislative study committee is reviewing a number of
issues regarding dredged material disposal policies and cost
sharing of the disposal of dredged material.
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Regulations to protect Wisconsin residents from hazardous air
pollutants became effective October 1, 1988. The rule restricts
emissions of substances which are acutely toxic or are
carcinogenic. Standards have been developed for existing and new
or modified air pollution sources. Air pollution sources
constructed prior to the rule's effective date, October 1, 1988,
are existing sources. Existing sources will be brought into
compliance on staggered schedules, depending upon whether they are
a major or minor source of air contaminants over a period of 18 to
42 months.
Approximately 440 hazardous air pollutants have been categorized
into 4 tables based upon the pollutants with known human harm.
Tables 1, 2 and 4 contain pollutants which have acceptable ambient
concentrations. Table 3 contains pollutants without acceptable
ambient concentrations. Table 3A contains known human carcinogens
and Table 3B contains suspected human carcinogens.
The tables contain de minimus or "trip" levels. If a facility's
allowable emissions exceed any table values, the facility must
submit a compliance plan. Facilities exceeding Table 1, 2 and/or
4 values must meet acceptable ambient concentrations based upon the
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist's
Threshold Limit Values (TLVs). Facilities exceeding Table 3A
values must control emissions to the lowest achievable emission
95
-------
rate (LAER). Best available control technology (BACT) must be used
for emissions which exceed Table 3B "trip " or de minimus values.
The rule also contains some items which will apply in the future.
Table 4 will become applicable to existing sources (sources
existing as of the rule promugation date) on October 1, 1991.
In addition, three studies are currently being conducted. Two of
the studies include an inventory of sources and the amounts of
emissions of chloroform and formaldehyde plus the control
technologies to control emissions of chloroform and formaldehyde.
The third study will evaluate the types and quantities of hazardous
air contaminants emitted from wastewater treatment facilities and
determine applicable emission control techniques, studies will be
completed by October 1, 1990.
Presently, the rule is being implemented by department staff.
However, the rule is in litigation. A group of 6 Wisconsin
buisness or technical associations are the main plantiffs. These
plantiffs are joined by 18 companies or associations as plantiff-
intervenors. The Natural Resources Board and the department are
the defendants. The intervenors are Citizens for a Better
Environment; John Muir Chapter - Sierra Club; League of Women
Voters, Inc.; and Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc.
The department won the first issues brought to trial in the Dane
County Circuit Court, Branch 11. A partial stay of some of the
rule's deadline dates was granted to certain affected companies on
April 10, 1989.
Both sides involved in this case have asked for an expedited trial
in the Appeals Court. The earliest a decision is expected is in
August 1989. The decision, however; could be as late as Fall 1989.
MONITORING AND SORVBILIAKCB
Wisconsin has continued its monitoring and surveillance efforts
over the past year. The Green Bay Mass Balance Study and Fox River
Mass Balance Study are underway. An urban nonpoint source
monitoring study is beginning in the Milwaukee Harbor Area of
Concern to identify the components of urban runoff and their
potential impacts on the Milwaukee Harbor and Estuary area.
HUMAN EXPOSURE AND HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
The Department of Health and Social Services conducted a study of
PCB in people who eat Great Lakes fish. Wisconsin anglers were
surveyed for fishing and consumption habits and comprehension and
compliance with the Wisconsin fish consumption health advisory.
The results of the study identified a positive correlation between
total PCB and DDE found in blood samples and total fish consumption
of sport-caught fish in 1985. These results demonstrate that
anglers may provide a population for assessment of PCBs and DDE
associated morbidity and mortality.
96
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The DNR has published the Green Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) .
Now an implementation committee with six advisory groups is
.determining how to implement the Green Bay Remedial Action Plan.
A public hearing was held in April 1989 on the draft Sheboygan
Remedial Action Plan. The final Sheboygan RAP is being written now
and will be completed and released later this summer.
The DNR has formed a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and a
Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) for the Marinette Harbor RAP.
The planning process is underway in Marinette and a final plan is
expected in October 1990. Wisconsin is preparing the plan with
assistance from Michigan.
The DNR has formed a TAG for the Milwaukee RAP. A CAC will be
formed by the beginning of August 1989. A planner has been hired
to work with the CAC and write the plan. Stage I of the process
(problem identification and determination of goals and objectives)
will be complete by July 1990. The plan is expected to be complete
by October 1991.
Wisconsin will be providing advice and assistance to Minnesota as
the St. Louis River RAP is prepared. A CAC has been formed. The
planning process is scheduled to be complete by June 1990.
OVERSIGHT AMD IMPLEMENTATION
This document outlines Wisconsin's activities that address toxic
substances in the Great Lakes. In addition, areawide water quality
managment plan updates contain recommendations to address toxic
substances.
Oversight within Wisconsin is being coordinated by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources Division for Environmental Quality
in conjunction with other Great Lakes programs.
97
-------
APPENDIX A
STATUS OF COMMITTEE INTEGRATION UNDER
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Committee Ontario Quebec
Air Toxics P P
Biomonitoring P P
Surface Water Permit/Certificate
Compatibility P P
Compliance M M
Cross-media Effects P P
Dredging/Contaminated Sediments P P
Fish Consumption Advisories P P
Ground Water Quality P M
Hazardous Waste Management P P
Health Effects P P
Land Application M M
Monitoring and Surveillance P P
Non-point Source Pollution P P
Risk Assessment/Management P P
Specimen Banking P M
"Pn denotes "participate in joint state/provincial committee"
"M" denotes "monitor activities of state committee"
-------
APPENDIX B
LIST OF DEADLINES UNDER THE
STATE/PROVINCIAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(In Chronological Order)
December 31 f 1988
0 Each jurisdiction develops an initial list of permit,
certificate, or standard information it is interested in
receiving from other jurisdictions for the purposes of
basinvide notice of discharge permits or other legally
enforceable instruments and forward list to other
jurisdictions (Clause 6 of MOU).
0 Jurisdictions jointly develop a list of persistent toxic
substances which should be controlled (Clause 7a).
° Emergency response phone number forwarded to other parties
(Clause 10).
0 Initial schedule of workshops developed (Clause 21).
0 Preliminary report on Great Lakes Water Quality Fund submitted
by Center for the Great Lakes (Clause 25).
May 31. 1989
0 Jurisdictions jointly develop an agreement for coordinating
control of toxic releases (Clause 4).
0 Jurisdictions jointly report to governors and premiers on
recommendations for interjurisdictional cooperation in
hazardous waste management planning (Clause 14).
° Jurisdictions submit recommendations on steps to improve
specimen banking programs (Clause 20a).
0 Jurisdictions jointly report on status of health effects
registries and necessary added initiatives (Clause 24).
° Jurisdictions jointly submit annual report to governors and
premiers (Clause 23).
December 31. 1989
0 Jurisdictions jointly report on actions being taken to control
toxic substances, the timetable for actions, and further
opportunities for reduction (Clause 7b).
Mav 31. 1990
0 Jurisdictions jointly review plans of actions (to control
persistent toxic substances) of other jurisdictions, and
report with recommendations (Clause 7c).
-------
APPENDIX C
MEMORANDUM ON COORDINATING CONTROL OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
THROUGH PERMITS OR OTHER LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE INSTRUMENTS
INTRODUCTION
Toxic substances are chemicals which have been shown to present
a risk of injury to public health or to the environment. Their
release to the environment as a result of a lack of knowledge,
accidents, or poor management has caused a long and growing list
of human, environmental and economic harm. The Great Lakes
Governors and Premiers have called the problem of persistent
toxic substances the foremost environmental issue confronting
the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin.
On June 13, 1988 the governors and premiers entered into the
Memorandum of Understanding on Control of Toxic Substances in the
Great Lakes Environment (hereafter "MOU"). That agreement
charges the environmental and health agencies to devise
integrated and complementary policies on the control of toxic
substances. The governors and premiers also agreed that public
outreach to ensure citizen involvement is an important component
in controlling toxic contaminants in the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River.
This memorandum, hereafter referred to as the Permitting and
Enforceable Instruments Memorandum or "PEIM", is an expanded,
improved version of a similar document which was ratified by the
state administrators in September 1986 (pursuant to the TSCA)
entitled "Toxic Substances Management in the Great Lakes Basin
Through the Permitting Process". PEIM will be used to coordinate
ongoing TSCA activities with new joint state and provincial
efforts to manage toxics.
The Great Lakes State and Provincial Environmental Administrators
believe this memorandum takes the first step toward developing a
strategy for coordinated regional management of discharges,
releases, and emissions of toxic substances in the Great Lakes-
St. Lawrence Basin through the use of permits or other legally
enforceable instruments. In an effort to ensure that progress
in this area will be steady and constant, the Great Lakes state
and Provincial Environmental Administrators will function as the
primary oversight group for the activities outlined in this
memorandum.
Recognizing that each of the Basin states and provinces has
different regulatory programs, at varying stages of development,
this memorandum provides a challenge to each of the jurisdic-
tions. Each state and province will continue to operate its own
toxic substance management program in accordance with its
respective administrative rules and other commitments. Also,
each retains its prerogative to go beyond the programs agreed to
herein, as each may feel appropriate.
-------
C-2
This memorandum is fully expected to change the way in which
toxic substances are presently managed in the Great Lakes - St.
Lawrence Basin. It will result in the states and provinces
developing compatible approaches to management of toxic
substances.
Regulatory agencies have the responsibility to establish
protection standards for the environment and public health and
to assure that these standards are met. The best means now
available for regulating these discharges is through the issuance
of permits or other legally enforceable instruments. To ensure
that permits or other legally enforceable instruments protect the
Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, the governors and
premiers agreed in the MOU to the following principles:
o Known point source discharges or emissions of toxic
substances that can negatively affect the Great Lakes - St.
Lawrence Basin should be controlled by a regulatory permit
or other legally enforceable instrument.
o The jurisdictions should ensure that water pollution
control programs for reduction of toxics do not result in
violations of health-related standards or standards
established for the protection of other media.
o Full control of toxic discharges requires that the
permitting of toxic substances released to surface water,
groundwater and air, be better integrated.
o Biomonitoring should be an integral part of the permitting
process because it allows natural resource managers to
measure the total impact of a discharge on the test species,
rather than the impact of the sum of individual chemicals.
o Coordinated ground water management programs will be
developed and implemented. This will include initiatives to
prevent the occurrence of ground water contamination within
sensitive areas adjacent to the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence
River and related tributaries. Long-term protection of
ground water resources in these areas is important to
ensure that migration of polluted ground water to the Great
Lakes Basin or across state/provincial boundaries does not
occur.
o The jurisdictions agree to work toward establishing rules or
permits or other legally enforceable instruments for
existing sources requiring controls. In addition, the
jurisdictions agree to carry out the evaluations needed to
better understand the impacts of toxic air emissions on the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.
-------
C-3
PROGRESS/FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Surface Water Permits or Other Legally Enforceable Instruments
Each jurisdiction has specific statutory requirements and
administrative rules that describe procedures for management of
toxic substances.
In addition, all jurisdictions seek to coordinate their efforts
and the development of policies and legislation such that these
are compatible with the roles of their respective federal
governments while recognizing the constitutional responsibilities
entrusted to each level of government as they pertain to the
control of toxic substances.
In order to protect the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin,
however, it is essential to ensure that ambient and treatment
standards and processes for writing permits or other legally
enforceable instruments of the jurisdictions are more fully
compatible. Nonetheless, the states and provinces may impose
standards which are more stringent than those agreed to in this
memorandum.
Biological monitoring allows managers to measure the toxicity of
effluents directly rather than indirectly through chemical
analysis. Properly designed bioconcentration/bioaccumulation
studies can be used to directly measure the burden of discharged
chemicals on aquatic life. There is a need to ensure that assay
techniques are standardized and that results are both meaningful
and comparable.
There is also a need to utilize assessment of risk when
considering the impact of permitted releases of toxic substances
on human health or the environment. Risk assessment considera-
tions permit organization and evaluation of all relevant
information on toxic substances, their interactions, and their
effects on environmental and human health to determine the
magnitude of risk that chemicals pose, given existing and
potential exposures. This information is then considered with
the social and economic cost of regulation, as well as public
perceptions, to reach a risk management decision as to what, if
any risk is acceptable.
o The jurisdictions agree to develop a strategy for compatible
permits or other legally enforceable instruments in the
Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin which would employ
consistent environmental and treatment standards. The first
meeting to develop the strategy will be held no later than
October 1989. A draft strategy will be prepared by July
1990.
-------
04
o The jurisdictions agree to meet annually after the draft
permit strategy is prepared to share standard and criteria
development strategies, risk assessment processes,
pretreatment requirements, knowledge of treatment
technology, permit limitation procedures and requirements,
and other aspects of surface water discharge regulatory
processes in order to confirm that permits or other legally
enforceable instruments are compatible.
o The jurisdictions will compare state/provincial practices
for using and investigate requiring the use of
biomonitoring/bioassay studies within the regulatory
process during a workshop to be held in October 1989. By
September 1990, state and provincial representatives will
agree upon standardized assay techniques and the
appropriate circumstances when biomonitoring will be
required.
o Results of biomonitoring studies will be incorporated into
the CETIS (Complex Effluents Toxicity Information System)
data storage system for access and review by other Basin
states and provinces.
o The jurisdictions agree to review Basin-wide practices and
develop recommendations for adoption of a uniform approach
to risk assessment/risk management as an integral part of
the regulation of toxic substances. Final recommendations
will be made by July 1990.
Contaminated Sediments/Dredging
Contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River
Basin are problematic because, over time, such sediments release
toxics into the aquatic ecosystem which bioaccumulate in living
organisms within the food chain. Some persistent toxics remain
in the ecosystem indefinitely, continuously endangering the food
chain and, through the consumption of contaminated fish, human
health. As such, remediation of contaminated sediments is
important to the long-term viability Basin ecosystem and to human
health within the states and provinces.
Dredging activities in the Basin do not directly add contaminants
to the aquatic environment. Dredging can, however, resuspend
contaminants by disturbing contaminated sediments. Dredging and
other construction activities involving toxics in sediments must
not be allowed to cause further degradation of the Great Lakes or
St. Lawrence River.
0 The jurisdictions will cooperate with their respective
federal governments in the remediation of contaminated
sediments, especially "toxic hotspots" within areas of
-------
C-5
concern, and in the development of compatible national
criteria for assessing the toxicity of contaminated
sediments. Such criteria will assist the states, provinces
and federal governments to identify and prioritize problem
areas and develop associated clean-up strategies.
o To prevent the spread of contaminanted sediments, all
dredging must be subject to permits or other legally
enforceable instruments. The Remedial Action Plans
currently being developed for the Great Lakes and St.
Lawrence River may provide guidance in this area.
o The jurisdictions will seek to cooperate with their
respective federal governments in the development of
compatible dredging regulations and technical design
specifications for the control of dredged spoil materials in
CDFs. Alternatives to CDFs such as upland facilities and on-
land sites should also be considered.
0 Dredging planning and program decisions should consider
overall ecosystem concerns as well as environmental, social
and economic costs and benefits. Alternatives to dredging
should be considered where practicable.
0 The jurisdictions will urge their respective federal
governments to consider expanding the mission of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Public Works Canada to include
responsibility for remedial actions, with oversight
authority vested in the states, provinces and federal
environmental agencies.
Ground Water Quality
There are many areas of the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence River and
related tributaries that are highly sensitive to ground water
contamination. The hydrologic linkage that exists between ground
water and surface water within adjacent or sensitive areas can be
a source of pollution to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River
when ground water is degraded. Long-term protection of ground
water resources is important to ensure that degradation will not
occur and migrate to the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River.
o The jurisdictions agree that adverse impacts resulting from
releases of toxic chemicals to ground water must be
controlled to adequately protect ground water and prevent
contamination of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.
The jurisdictions thus agree to develop ground water
management programs as soon as possible and no later than
September 1991.
-------
C-6
Air Quality
In general, consideration has only recently been given to the
secondary impact of air quality on water quality and other
components of the environment. Many toxic substances that harm
the aquatic ecosystem remain unregulated as air emissions.
Reducing toxic air emissions and improving air quality,
therefore, will help to improve water quality.
The regulation of air toxics differs throughout the basin. Some
jurisdictions require strict controls on new and existing
emission sources for all contaminants including nontraditional
pollutants such as toxics. This approach is not generally
required under existing law and is therefore not uniformly
applied throughout the Great Lakes region. Requiring best
available control technology (BACT) for both new and existing
toxic air emissions wherever possible would help to reduce
atmospheric deposition to the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin.
Particular attention should be paid to persistent toxics that
have long-term impacts on the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin
(e.g., PCBs, furans, dioxins, etc.).
o The jurisdictions agree to hold a workshop in November 1989
to develop a mechanism that will incorporate the effects of
toxic air emissions on Great Lakes-st. Lawrence River Basin
water quality into air emission permits or other legally
enforceable instruments.
o During the November 1989 workshop the jurisdictions will
investigate development of a computerized air toxics data
base. The purpose of the data base will be to obtain a
better understanding of the nature and sources of toxic air
emissions and their migration, dispersion, and resulting
impact upon the Great Lake - St. Lawrence Basin.
o The jurisdictions agree that best available control
technology (BACT) should be applied wherever possible to
both new and existing sources to control air emissions of
persistent toxic substances. Where current authority is
inadequate, the jurisdictions will seek to gain new
authority, or to revise existing authority, as necessary to
address the problem of the emission of persistent air toxics
and their effects on the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin.
-------
C-7
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Urban and rural nonpoint sources of contamination can contribute
major quantities of water pollutants. Urban runoff can include
such toxic contaminants as heavy metals and a variety of organic
compounds. Where large areas are devoted to agricultural
activities, high concentrations of toxic and conventional
pollutants can be released to the aquatic environment. Nonpoint
sources of toxic substances have been linked with pollution of
the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. These sources of toxic
substances are not generally controlled through permits or other
legally enforceable instruments.
o A meeting will be held in November, 1989, to evaluate
jurisdictional strategies for the reduction of nonpoint
source pollution to the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin. In
some cases, regulation of nonpoint sources may be necessary
to fully improve water quality.
o Of particular concern is the coordination of programs that
relate to stormwater. It is important to assure that
resources are directed at identifying stormwater problems
and that priority concerns are handled effectively. Further
development of stormwater programs should be addressed in
the meeting described above.
Cross-Media Effects
It is now generally understood that toxic chemicals can enter
the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin through discharges to
surface water, runoff, ground water transport, and air
deposition. Control of toxic chemicals accomplishes little if
the contaminant is merely moved from water to air or vice versa.
For example, a chemical may be efficiently removed from a surface
water discharge and end up in a sludge that is incinerated. If
the incineration process is not carefully controlled, the
particular chemical may survive intact and enter the air to be
subsequently deposited back into the water.
The control of toxic substance releases should be accomplished
by integrated programs that account for discharges to surface
water, ground water and emissions to air. Significant effort
will be required to realign regulatory processes throughout the
Basin in order to account for cross-media effects. Accordingly,
actions such as biomonitoring should be an integral part of the
regulatory process in order to properly quantify the loadings of
toxic substances originating from all sources.
o The jurisdictions should ensure that the total loadings from
discharges of toxic substances to all media do not violate
-------
C-8
aquatic environmental or health-related standards
established for specific media. A workshop will be held in
October 1989 to initiate this process by defining common
permitting initiatives to effectively control cross-media
transfer of toxic chemicals. Recommendations'will be
developed by May 1991 to assist jurisdictions in evaluating
their programs and insure that the cumulative impacts on
water quality of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Basin from
all sources are integrated into the regulatory process.
The jurisdictions commit to reviewing their processes for
issuance of permits or other legally enforceable instruments
to see if they adequately address persistent toxic
substances. A workshop to review the programs in each
state and province to control persistent toxic substances
will be held in October 1989. The goal of this workshop
will be to examine the development of programs directed
toward progressive reductions of loadings of persistent
toxic substances consistent with the MOU, domestic
legislation and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The signatory parties will identify and report no later
than December 31, 1989 the actions being taken by each state
and province to achieve control of these substances
including a schedule for implementation.
Schedule for PEIM activities
October 1989: 1. Initial workshop on developing strategy for
compatible permits or other legally enforceable
instruments
2. Workshop to compare state/provincial practices
for using and investigate requiring the use of
biomonitoring/bioassay studies within the
regulatory process
3. Workshop to define common permitting
initiatives to effectively control cross-media
transfer of toxics
4. Workshop to review programs in each state/
province for controlling persistent toxic
substances
November 1989 1. Workshop to develop a mechanism that will
incorporate the effects of toxic air emissions
on Basin water quality into permits and other
-------
C-9
legally enforceable instruments, and to
investigate development of an air toxics data
base
2. Workshop to evaluate jurisdictional strategies
for reduction of nonpoint source pollution
December 1989
1. Report on actions being taken to achieve
control of persistent toxic substances,
including a schedule for implementation
July 1990 1. Prepare draft strategy for development of
compatible permits or other legally enforceable
instruments
2. Submit final recommendations for adoption of a
uniform approach to risk assessment/management
as an integral part of the regulation of toxic
substances
September 1990 I. Reach agreement on standardized assay
techniques and the appropriate circumstances
when biomonitoring will be used
May 1991
1. Develop recommendations to assist jurisdictions
in evaluating their cross-media programs
September 1991 1. Deadline for development of ground water
management programs
-------
APPENDIX D
STATE AND PROVINCIAL HEALTH EFFECTS
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Standardize "the Collection and Management of Health Data
Health agencies in the Great Lakes states and provinces should
standardize their health registries wherever possible. An
initial examination of registries in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence
River Basin suggests that existing health registries already have
certain common data elements (see Appendix E for more detail).
Identification of these commonalities will allow registry data to
be used to help answer regional research questions developed by
the Task Force. Nonetheless, additional recommendations must be
developed and submitted to their respective jurisdictions to
further increase registry compatibility among the states and
provinces.
The Great Lakes state and provincial health agencies should also
seek to permit researchers to access registry data. The Task
Force will examine state and provincial regulations governing
data availability, develop recommendations for increasing
compatibility and permitting access, and submit such
recommendations to their respective jurisdictions.
Conduct Intra-basin and Inter-regional Studies to Determine the
Health Effects, if any, of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin
Water Quality
The quality of Great Lakes water may influence the health of the
Basin's citizens. Cooperation among the states, provinces and
appropriate U.S. and Canadian federal agencies can facilitate
studies of potential health effects. The Task Force members
recommend that these groups jointly pursue studies that may
determine if Great Lakes water quality or other environmental
media affect human health. Two possible studies are:
° A study comparing the health in those communities using Great
Lakes water for drinking with the health in those Basin
communities not drinking Great Lakes water; and
° A study comparing the health in the Great Lakes region with
the health in other regions of either country.
Pursuant to the TSCA, the states have already approached certain
U.S. federal agencies to seek data and funding for these studies.
While funding was not available at the time, it was suggested
that certain U.S. federal agencies might be willing to assist in
the development of such studies.
-------
D-2
A subcommittee of the state and provincial Task Force will again
attempt to obtain federal funding. If federal funding is still
unavailable, the Task Force will pursue funding alternatives.
Compare Trends in Great Lakes Water Quality with Trends in
Health Effects
Using historical information such as birth and mortality
certificates in Basin communities, trends in health effects can
be compared with trends in water quality. The results of such
studies can aid in the evaluation of water quality improvement
programs, particularly with respect to the human health
objectives built into water quality standards or other legally
enforceable requirements.
The myriad of confounding factors that can invalidate the data
used in such studies necessitates review before studies are
undertaken. In an attempt to review appropriate data, a
subcommittee of the Task Force will approach state, provincial
and federal environmental agencies, as appropriate, to seek
assistance in gathering and analyzing historical information on
water quality. After this review, the Task Force will prepare
recommendations for future courses of action.
Conduct Additional Health Effects Studies when Adequate
Environmental Exposure Data are Available
One of the most difficult problems researchers face in
determining the health effects of a particular contaminant is
that of establishing a cause and effect relationship between
exposure and a particular health effect. As this continues to
hinder health effects studies, the Task Force recommends that
studies be undertaken in the Basin based on adequate exposure
data.
Identify Organizations that Develop or Assist in the Development
of Regional Health Advisories
The jurisdictions can benefit from a knowledge of those
organizations operating within the Basin that develop or assist
in the development of health advisories on a region-wide basis.
A number of such groups have been identified in Appendix F. A
subcommittee of the Task Force will conduct a survey of the
duties that these organizations perform relative to regional
health advisories. The Task Force will recommend measures to
improve interaction between the jurisdictions and such groups so
as to increase the mutually beneficial exchange of information.
-------
D-3
Identify Roles of Specific Units within State and Provincial,
Governments as Related to Human
Many state and provincial agencies and agency sub-units perform
duties which impact health in the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence Basin.
Inter-agency communications would be improved by a sharing of
information within and across jurisdictions as to the health-
related duties of agencies and agency sub-units.
The Task Force recommends that their respective Governors7 and
Premiers' offices assist in an identification of health-related
duties within the jurisdictions. It is further recommended that
workshops between environmental and health specialists be
scheduled, as appropriate, to improve inter-agency
communications .
-------
APPENDIX E
COMMON DATA ELEMENTS OF THE GREAT LAKES
STATE/PROVINCIAL HEALTH REGISTRIES
BIRTH CERTIFICATES/NOTICES
INFANT
a. Name - first, middle, last
b. Sex - male or female
c. Birth - single, twin, or other specified
d. Date of Birth - month, day, year
e. Place of Birth - name of hospital or if not in a hospital,
the address
f. Weight - specification of units varies
MOTHER
a. Name - first, middle, maiden
b. Age - in years at time of birth
c. Mailing Address - street and number, city or village, state
or province, zip code
d. Previous Live Births - number living and dead, date of last
live birth
e. Other Terminations - includes number of spontaneous and
induced abortions (all states except New York indicate
number of terminations at more or less than 20 or 16 weeks
gestation) date of last other termination by month and year
FATHER
a. Name - first, middle, last
b. Age - in years at time of birth
c. Place of Birth - state or country (not Ontario)
d. Race - white, black, american indian, etc. (specify/ not
Ontario)
e. Education - number of years completed in high school and
college specified
-------
E-2
MEDICAL
a. Congenital Malformations - either none or description is
entered for all states/provinces except Indiana which only
asks yes or no.
b. Complications of Pregnancy - description (not Ontario)
c. Complications of Labor and/or Delivery - description
(not Ontario)
d. Concurrent Illness or Conditions Affecting Pregnancy-
description (not Ontario)
CERTIFIER/MISCELLANEOUS
a. Certifier Information - name, title, signature, date signed,
mailing address, including zip code or post office
b. Attendant - name and title if different from certifier; for
Ohio and Minnesota the certifier is always the attendant
c. Registrar - signature and date received or filed
Other Birth Certificate /Notice Data Elements Collected But
Common for All States and Provinces
1. Social Security Number for mother and father
2. Street and number and zip code of mother's residence
when different from mailing address
3 . Most recent and/or usual occupation of mother and
father, including type of business and name and address
of firm
4. If serological test for syphilis was done on mother and
when
5. If infant received preventive treatment for purulent
con juncti vi tis
6. Date of mother's first live birth
7. If infant is living at time of report
8. Special procedures performed regarding infant, e.g.,
amniocentesis, ultrasonography
9. Method of delivery
-------
E-3
10. Other procedures performed at delivery
11. Radiation exposure during pregnancy
12. Was infant transported to another hospital; if yes,
name and address of hospital
13. Gestation in weeks
14. Birth injuries to child
15. If child is legitimate or was mother married to father
16. Labor induced
17. other significant
18. Infant admitted to ICU
19. License number of certifier
20. Medical diagnoses for which infant was hospitalized
-------
E-4
DEATH CERTIFICATES
DECEDENT
a. Name - first, middle, last
b. Sex
c. Age - in years at time of death; under 1 year - month, days;
under 1 month - hours, minutes
d. Date of Death - month, day, year
e. County of Death
f. Locality of Death - city, town, village
g. Place of Death - name of hospital or institution; if neither
give address
CAUSE OF DEATH
a. Immediate - specified, approximate time interval between
onset and death
b. Conditions Giving Rise to Immediate Cause - specified,
approximate time interval between onset and death - space
allowed for two entries
c. Significant Conditions - conditions contributing to death
but not related to cause given
d. Autopsy - yes or no
Injury
e. Type - accident, homicide, suicide, undetermined, or
pending investigation
f. Date of Injury - month, day, year
g. Description of Occurrence
h. Place of Injury
-------
E-5
DISPOSITION (not Ontario)
a. Type - burial, cremation or other specified
b. Place - name or cemetery, crematory, or other specified
c. Location - city or village and state
d. Funeral Home - name and address
e. Signature of Funeral Director
CERTIFIER
a. Signature and Date - physician, medical examiner or coroner
b. Name of Attending Physician - for Ohio the certifier is
always the attending physician; this information is not
obtained if the certifier is the medical examiner or coroner
c. Mailing Address
REGISTRAR
a. Signature
b. Date Filed or Received
Other Elements Common For Most States and Provinces
1. Status of Decedent in Hospital or Institution inpatient,
outpatient, ER, DOA, other specified
2. Street and Number of Residence of Decedent
3. Date of Disposition - month, day, year
4. Registration or License Number of Funeral Director
Other Elements for Ontario
1. If deceased was female, did death occur during pregnancy
or within 42 hours thereafter?
2. Does cause of death listed consider autopsy finding?
3. May further information be available later?
4. Designation of certifier
-------
E-6
CANCER REGISTRIES
(except Ohio)
SUBJECT
a. Name - first, middle initial, last
b. Residence - county
c. Mailing Address or Residence - street number and name; city,
town or village; state or province; zip code
d. Date of Birth - month, day, year
e. Sex
MEDICAL
a. Medical Chart Number
b. Date of Original Diagnosis - month, year
c. Primary Site
d. Histological Type
e. Method of Diagnostic Conformation - histology, cytology,
microscopic, direct visual, x-ray, clinical, other, unknown
f. Hospital - name or identification number
Other Cancer Registry Elements Common for at Least
50 Percent of the States/Provinces
1. Maiden Name
2. Social Security/Identification Number
3. Date of Discharge - month, year
4. Date of Death - month, day, year
5. Name of Physician - first, last
6. state of Disease - in situ, localized, regional,
metastatic
7. Diagnosed at Other Hospital - name or identification
number
-------
E-7
8. Usual Occupation
9. Kind of Business or Industry
10. Date Abstracted
11. Abstractor Identification - name, initials, or code
Other Information in Ontario Cancer Registry
1. Place of Birth
2. Vital Status as of Last Known Date
3. Cause of death from death certificate, if deceased
-------
APPENDIX F
NON-STATE/PROVINCIAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT DEVELOP OR
ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL HEALTH ADVISORIES
0 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, including the Great
Lakes National Program Office
° Environment Canada
0 Committee on the Assessment of Human Health Effects of
Great Lakes Hater Quality, International Joint Commission
0 State and Provincial Fish Consumption Advisory Task Force,
Council of Great Lakes Governors
0 North Central states Epidemiologists
0 U.S. Clearinghouse for Hazardous Materials
0 U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
° Marine Fishery Division, U.S. Department of Interior
0 U.S. Federal and State Technical Regulation Committee
(FASTRAC)
0 U.S. Center for Disease Control, National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health
0 American Public Health Association
-------
APPENDIX G
GREAT LAKES STATES AIR PERMITTING AGREEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
In 1986, the Great Lakes states' environmental administra-
tors entered into an agreement, "Toxic Substances Manage-
ment in the Great Lakes Basin Through the Permitting
Process," requiring that Best Available Control Technology
be installed wherever possible on all new and existing
sources of persistent air toxic pollutants which impact on
the Great Lakes, pursuant to implementing the governors'
"Great Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement." In 1987,
permitting staff representatives from the Great Lakes
states attended a workshop in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where
the latest research was presented, documenting the need to
reduce the air impacts on the Great Lakes. At this
workshop, the Great Lakes states' air permitting represen-
tatives investigated and made several recommendations on
how the governors and environmental administrators
directives can best be implemented. One of the recommenda-
tions was to have a follow-up meeting of the air permitting
staff representatives in July of 1988 to insure consistency
in the type of information which will be considered in
permit reviews, and in the implementation of Best Available
Control Technology, clear communications and informational
exchange between Great Lakes states, and clarification of
issues which EPA needs to take the lead on in order to
assure effective implementation of the air provisions of
the governors' and environmental administrators' agree-
ments .
II. PERMITTING INFORMATION
A. All permit applicants in the state will be required to
identify and quantify potential emissions of the
pollutants identified in Table A as a part of a routine
New Source Review permit application. Table A consists
of the seven pollutants identified by the IJC as having
adverse impacts on the Great Lakes and which have the
potential of being emitted by air pollution point
sources. Other pollutants may be added to Table A by
unanimous agreement of the environmental administrators
of the Great Lakes states.
B. Each state permitting authority shall conduct its own
technical review in order to assure accurate identi-
fication and quantification of these pollutants.
C. Environmental Impact Statements, for potential sources
of pollutants in Table A which are required under
-------
G-2
current state and federal regulations, should consider
potential adverse impacts on the Great Lakes in order
to be considered complete.
III. IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
A. For the pollutants listed on Table A, each permitting
authority shall utilize all applicable air pollution
regulations to insure that BACT is being installed on
any new or modified source which is subject to the
state's New Source Review Program, and on existing
sources, considering a de minimus cutoff, which are
required to obtain an operating permit, states which
do not have the current legal authority to assure that
BACT is installed on new and existing sources of the
pollutants in Table A shall pursue through their
appropriate regulatory process authority to implement
the governors' and environmental administrators'
agreements.
B. For purposes of this agreement, BACT means emission
limits, operating stipulations, and/or technology
requirements based on the maximum degree of reduction
which each Great Lakes state determines is achievable
through application of processes or available methods,
systems, and techniques for the control of each of the
pollutants listed in Table A, taking into account
energy, environmental, and economic impacts, and other
costs.
C. Emission limits, operating stipulations, and/or
technology requirements shall be established as permit
conditions for each of the pollutants listed in
Table A. Whenever warranted, sources will also be
required to conduct an emission verification test to
assure compliance with the allowed emission limits
during the initial verification test as well as during
periodic verification tests.
IV. INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
A. Subject to restrictions on disclosure of trade secrets
under federal and state law, each state shall enter
into the BACT/LAER Clearinghouse and the Air Toxic
Information Clearinghouse all permitting information
relating to sources of the pollutants identified in
Table A. This information shall include, as a minimum,
the following information: all BACT and/or LAER
determinations; all useful air toxics permitting
information; and all air toxics emission verification
data.
-------
6-3
C. Each state shall participate in a standing technical steering
committee to maintain consistency to the extent practicable in
state determinations made pursuant to this agreement.
Signed and entered into November 3
, 1988.
Illinois
./ Indiana
ftlflo
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Minnesota
V'//M/(j
'/
( ,:
7
Wisconsin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(PL-12J)
12th
------- |