Canada
m
USA
COOPERATING TO IMPLEMENT THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT
MISE EN OEUVRE DE L'ACCORD SUR LA QUALITE DE L'EAU DES GRANDS LACS
CANADA -- UNITED STATES
STRATEGY FOR THE VIRTUAL ELIMINATION OF PERSISTENT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
Purpose
In keeping with the objective of the revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, as amended by Protocol
signed November 18, 1987 (1987 GLWQA), to restore and protect the Great Lakes, the purpose of this
binational strategy is to set forth a collaborative process by which Environment Canada (EC) and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), in consultation with Great Lakes states and provincial
governments, will work in cooperation with their public and private partners toward the goal of virtual
elimination of persistent toxic substances resulting from human activity, particularly those which
bioaccumulate, from the Great Lakes Basin, so as to protect and ensure the health and integrity of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. An underlying tenet of this Strategy is that the governments cannot by their actions alone
achieve the goal of virtual elimination; all sectors of society must participate and cooperate to ensure success.
The goal of virtual elimination will be achieved through a variety of programs and actions, but the primary
emphasis will be on pollution prevention. This Strategy reaffirms the two countries' commitment to the sound
management of chemicals, as stated in Agenda 21: A Global Action Plan for the 21st Century and adopted
at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. The Strategy will also be guided
by the principles articulated by die International Joint Commission's (IJC) Virtual Elimination Task Force
(VETF) in the Seventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Quality.
This Strategy has been developed under the auspices of the Binational Executive Committee (BEC), which
is charged with coordinating the implementation of the binational aspects of the 1987 GLWQA. The BEC is
co-chaired by EC and USEPA, and includes members of the Great Lakes States and the province of Ontario,
and other federal departments and agencies in Canada and the United States.
Environmental Context
The Great Lakes are an extraordinary natural endowment, holding 18 percent of the world's supply of surface
fresh water. They are home to 33 million people, 47% of whom draw their drinking water from die Lakes.
The Great Lakes are also vital to many North American fish and wildlife sre'ies. Their wealdi of natural
resources has long made die region a heartland of economic strength.
During die 1970s, it became apparent diat pollution caused by persistent toxic substances was harming Great
Lakes species and posing risks to human and wildlife consumers of fish. Accordingly, under die Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement »f 1978 (die revised GLWQA), the United States and Canada pledged to seek the
virtual elimination of die discharge of persistent toxic substances to die Great Lakes.
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview (Toronto)
Ontario M3H 5T4
Canada
ENVIRONNEMENT CANADA
4905. rue Dufferin
Downsview (Toronto)
Ontario M3H 5T4
Canada
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Great Lakes National Program Office
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago. Illinois 60604
U.S.A.
-------
The risks to human, fish and wildlife health came to the fore again during the 1980s when public attention
became focused on the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. These concerns led to the negotiation and signing
separate from the 1987 GLWQA, of the four-party Niagara River Declaration of Intent (DOI) in 1987, and the
development of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, which has been incorporated into the Lake Ontario
Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP).
The 1987 GLWQA established a process, set of commitments, and general principles for developing and
implementing Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for geographic areas of concern and Lakewide Management
Plans (LaMPs) for critical pollutants.
In 1991, in response to a recommendation from the IJC, the governments of Canada, the United States,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ontario and Wisconsin developed the Binational Program to Restore and Protect the
Lake Superior Basin (Binational Program). The purpose of the Binational Program was to protect the high
quality waters of the Lake Superior Basin, to restore degraded areas therein, ano 10 achieve zero discharge of
designated persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances from point sources in the Basin.
In 1994, the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA), was established
to ensure implementation of the requirements of the 1987 GLWQA. In 1995, the final U.S. Great Lakes Water
Quality Guidance (GLI) for the Great Lakes was published, establishing consistent water quality standards
across the Great Lakes system. The Strategy builds on and complements all of these efforts.
Significant successes in reducing toxic substances in the Great Lakes include reduced levels of PCBs, dioxins
and DDT, cleanup of contaminated sediment sites at Great Lakes harbors, and improved sport fisheries.
However, even given the important accomplishments in toxics reduction achieved by the RAPs, LaMPs,
Niagara River DOI and the Binational Program over the past two decades and the actions taken by both
countries to ban, cancel, and restrict the use of a number of persistent toxic substances, these chemicals
continue to be present in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Levels of PCBs remain unacceptable and require
continued issuance of public health advisories regarding fish consumption across the entire Great Lakes
system. Mercury contamination also triggers many fish consumption advisories, suppressing the economic
potential of the region's fisheries industries. Levels of toxaphene contamination may be increasing in Lakes
Superior and Michigan; revised health protection standards for toxaphene led the Province of Ontario to issue
fish consumption advisories for several Lake Superior species. The continuing presence of these substances
is primarily the result of release from contaminated bottom sediments (e.g., PCBs, mercury), atmospheric
deposition of combustion byproducts (e.g., dioxins, B(a)P, mercury), and undetected releases from various
processes (e.g., PCBs, B(a)P, hexachlorobenzene). In some cases, there max also be illegal or accidental
discharge of stored substances for which production and use has previously been banned (e.g., pesticides).
hi addition, there is now increased understanding that the atmosphere is a principal pathway by which many
pollutants reach surface waters such as the Great Lakes. Contaminated bottom sediments pollute certain
harbors, impeding navigational dredging and the economic potential for use of these waters. In Canada, the
Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund has been evaluating over 250 technologies to safely remove and treat
contaminated sediments. In the U.S. the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other regulatory
programs have addressed some of these problems, but more needs to be done. There is growing public concern
about, and active government investigation into, toxic pollutants that may produce non-cancerous human
health effects, including reproductive and hormonal disruption, and learning disabilities.
-------
The "unfinished business" of virtually eliminating persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin remains
a significant challenge. To contribute to the resolution of this problem, more strategic and coordinated
interventions are required at various geographic scales, from the local watershed/Area of Concern to the
lakewide, basinwide, national, and international arenas. Movement of persistent toxic substances does not
respect jurisdictional or geographic borders. In particular, the interbasin transfer of persistent toxic substances
from one lake to another and the short- and long- range movement and deposition of these chemicals from the
air compel EC and USEPA to develop a coordinated Binational Virtual Elimination Strategy.
The Strategy is intended to fill in the gaps which exist where ongoing programs or emerging initiatives do not
address toxic releases; to provide a context of basin-wide goals for localized actions; and to provide "out of
basin" support to Great Lakes Basin programs such as LaMPs and RAPs.
Approach to Virtual Elimination
The 1987 GLWQA commits the two countries to seek to "virtually eliminate" the discharge of persistent toxic
substances in the Great Lakes ecosystem. To accomplish this objective, the IJC in 1990 urged the Parties to
develop and implement "a comprehensive, binational program to lessen the uses of, and exposure to persistent
toxic chemicals found in the Great Lakes environment." In then- response to the IJC's Seventh Biennial Report
on Great Lakes Water Quality, both the U.S. and Canada reaffirmed their commitment to work on such a
binational strategy, to promote implementation of commitments in the 1987 GLWQA. Since that time, both
countries have undertaken their own virtual elimination efforts, Canada through its Toxic Substances
Management Policy, and the U.S. through its Virtual Elimination Pilot Project.
In February 1995, Prime Minister Chretien and President Clinton confirmed the commitment by the U.S. and
Canada to work together to develop a binational strategy to address the most persistent toxic substances in
the Great Lakes environment. The two countries prepared this draft, building on past and ongoing virtual
elimination efforts in the Basin, including the extensive work by the IJC in their framework outlined in the
VETF report. The Strategy also incorporates suggestions, ideas and concepts embodied in the 6th and 7th IJC
Biennial Reports.
This Strategy will follow the framework outlined in Agenda 21: A Global Action Plan for the 21st Century
and adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. In this framework,
the U.S. and Canada (and other nations) committed, where appropriate to:
undertake concerted activities to reduce risks for toxic chemicals, taking into account the
entire lifecycle of the chemicals. These activities could encompass both regulatory and
non-regulatory measures, such as promotion of the use of cleaner products and technologies;
emission inventories; product labeling; use limitations; economic incentives; and the phasing
out or banning of toxic chemicals that pose an unreasonable and otherwise unmanageable
risk to human health and the environment, including those that are toxic, persistent and
bioaccumulative and whose use cannot be adequately controlled; and
adopt policies and regulatory and non-regulatory measures to identify, and minimize
exposure to, toxic chemicals by replacing them with less toxic substitutes and ultimately
phasing out the chemicals that pose unreasonable and otherwise unmanageable risk to
human health and the environment and those that are toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative
and whose use cannot be adequately controlled.
-------
This concept of Virtual Elimination, as acknowledged by the IJC and for purposes of this Strategy, also
recognizes that it may not be possible to achieve total elimination of all persistent toxic substances - some
may be produced by, or as a result of, natural processes; some may persist at low background levels. In
addition, total or complete elimination may not be possible for technological reasons. To accomplish the
objective of restoring and maintaining the integrity of the Great Lakes, the Strategy seeks to reduce and
virtually eliminate the use, generation or release of persistent toxic substances resulting from human activity.
Virtual elimination will be sought within the most expedient time frame through the most appropriate,
common sense, practical and cost-effective blend of voluntary, regulatory or incentive-based actions. All
feasible options will be considered, including phaseouts and bans.
Actions identified in this Strategy will be complemented by other existing or proposed regulatory and
non-regulatory initiatives. In addition, it is anticipated that actions identified in this document will evolve
over time as information about opportunities becomes known, and that additional approaches and actions will
be identified. Virtual elimination may not be achievable tomorrow, but the challenges and actions outlined
in this Strategy represent tangible milestones on the path toward this goal.
Analytical Framework
EC and the USEPA, in cooperation with their partners, will use a four-step process to work toward virtual
elimination.
1. Information Gathering
Identify to the extent feasible, the full range of sources, both point and nonpoint, within and outside
the Basin which release the selected chemicals, by economic sector. Within each source, identify why
and how the substance is used or released (used as a product, released as a byproduct, etc.) This step
may include examining the entire lifecycle of the substance, from initial decision to use through
eventual disposal.
2. Analyze current regulations, initiatives and programs which manage or control substances
Assess how existing laws, regulations and programs influence the use and release of these substances
across states, provinces, regions and international borders. Identify the gaps in these regulations,
programs and initiatives that offer opportunity for the most effective reduction in use, generation or
release.
3. Identify cost-effective options to achieve further reductions
Identify options that may offer opportunities for new or modified measures, including emission
trading schemes or other alternative approaches, which may speed up the pace or level of reductions,
taking into account cost effectiveness.
4. Implement actions to work toward the goal of virtual elimination
Recommend and implement actions that work toward the goal of virtual elimination, using
cost-effective measures.
-------
With respect to some substances, EC and USEPA already have taken one or more of these steps, as discussed
further in Attachment 1.
Principles
This Strategy builds on the framework adopted by Canada and the United States and other countries around
the world in Chapter 19 of Agenda 21 on Environmentally Sound Management of Toxic Chemicals, and the
principles advanced by the IJC's VETF for a virtual elimination strategy. Therefore, it is agreed that in
implementing this Strategy, EC and the USEPA, in cooperation with their partners:
recognize that persistent toxic substances, especially those which bioaccumulate, do not respect
international boundaries; they pass between nations via the atmosphere, in shared waters, and through
trade or transboundary movement of products and wastes. Therefore, our two nations cannot protect
our citizens solely through bilateral actions. We will work with other nations to share scientific
information, assist them in their environmental decisions and work with them toward international
accords to reduce these substances, including in the context of the new North American Resolution
on the Sound Management of Chemicals under the North American Agreement for Environmental
Cooperation; the development of protocols to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
(UNECE)/Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) relating to persistent
organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals; and anticipated multilateral negotiations on POPs.
reaffirm their shared responsibility to work toward the goal of virtual elimination and to recognize
that the two countries' respective domestic measures to achieve that goal must respect the
institutional, environmental and socio-economic context of each country. Each country has discretion
to include and act in accordance with its domestic national policies in meeting the commitments of
this Strategy, recognizing the need for flexibility in determining how to meet these commitments and
the possibility that some actions will evolve over time as information about opportunities becomes
available. EC and USEPA at all times are free to take actions and pursue targets more stringent than
those identified in this Strategy. Each country will build on the efforts of states/provinces, industries
and local communities, both within and outside the Basin.
favour "cleaner, cheaper and smarter" ways to reduce persistent toxic substances, focusing on the
strongest opportunities across a substance's life cycle, and applying to all sources and pathways, to
reduce its releases. EC and USEPA believe that pursuing a long-term, phased strategy through
prevention where possible and remediation when necessary, is a common sense, practical approach
to achieving environmental objectives.
are committed to an open, interactive, public participation process, which includes issuing regular
progress reports to the Public. While the two federal governments must lead, they alone cannot
achieve the goal of virtual elimination. Other levels of government, industry and society as a whole
must share the responsibility to restore and maintain the health of the Great Lakes Basin.
will collaborate in, and support voluntary initiatives by major use and release sectors and others to
reduce and eventually eliminate the use, generation or release of substances as a complement to
regulatory initiatives.
-------
Scope
Recognizing that virtual elimination is a long-term objective, this Strategy provides a framework to achieve
specific actions from 1996 to 2005. These actions and goals represent milestones along the path to virtual
elimination. This Strategy embraces actions to reduce and virtually eliminate the use, generation, or release
of persistent toxic substances resulting from human activity, particularly those which bioaccumulate, that
affect or have the potential to affect the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The scope of the Strategy and its associated commitments and activities will be focused primarily on the Great
Lakes Basin. However, with respect to atmospheric deposition, the traditional concept of the geographic area
which impacts the Basin will be expanded to include a national, or other appropriate, scale since the
long-range transport of these pollutants adversely affects the water quality of the Lakes.
To facilitate the reductions, EC and USEPA will work in cooperation with other responsible jurisdictions on
a national and international basis to achieve contributions to the goals of the Strategy, by strengthening
linkages to all existing toxics reduction efforts to ensure that goals are harmonized and actions are coordinated
to achieve environmental progress.
This Strategy includes those actions undertaken jointly by EC, USEPA and their partners, as well as those
actions undertaken individually through each nation's domestic programs and processes.
Within the context of the Strategy, EC and USEPA will seek the cooperation of their partners to address
persistent toxic substances coming from long-range transport outside the Basin that enter the Great Lakes
ecosystem, while supporting and building upon the ongoing processes in the Lakewide Management Plans
(LaMPs) and the Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) to reduce "within basin" sources. It is expected that the
LaMPs and RAPs will make important contributions to the goal of virtual elimination and will provide means
to identify opportunities and to achieve "within-basin" load reductions. The individual LaMPs will be focused
on those chemicals that are of concern in that particular basin, and those which have the potential to migrate
to other lakes or waterways; the LaMP reduction targets may also be more stringent than those in the Strategy.
Reductions achieved through within-basin efforts will be very important to meeting the challenges, and
ensuring the success, of this Strategy.
EC and USEPA recognize that many "critical pollutant" lists exist. For purposes of this Strategy, they have
chosen to focus actions first on those substances that have been identified for priority action by the IJC, or that
have been designated as "critical pollutants" by the Lakewide Management Plans (see "Level I" substances
- Appendix I). In essence, these are chemicals that are present in the water, sediment or aquatic biota of the
Great Lakes system and that are exerting, singly or in synergistic or additive combination, a toxic effect on
aquatic, animal, or human life.
Level I substances represent the "bullseye" around which the governments will focus and lead actions and
efforts. Since these substances have been associated with or have the immediate potential to cause deleterious
environmental impacts because of their presence in the Basin, they represent an immediate priority and are
targeted for virtual elimination through voluntary or regulatory, incentive-based actions that phase out the use,
generation or release of these chemicals in a cost-effective manner within the most expedient time-frame.
«
The Strategy also includes actions for a second set of chemicals ("Level II" substances Appendix I) that
have the potential for significantly impacting the Great Lakes ecosystem through their use and/or release.
These substances are also targeted for voluntary actions; stakeholders are strongly encouraged to undertake
-------
preventative measures to achieve significant reductions in the use and release of these substances to the
environment.
On a biennial basis, EC, USEPA and their partners will assess and evaluate progress under the Strategy during
the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). In addition, EC and USEPA in cooperation with their
partners will examine the chemicals addressed by the Strategy to determine whether any Level II chemicals
should be elevated to the Level I list. Also at this time, new chemicals which present threats to the Great
Lakes ecosystem will be considered for inclusion on the Level I or II lists.
Challenges
EC and USEPA, working in cooperation with their partners, accept the following challenges as tangible
milestones on the path toward virtual elimination. These milestones will be achieved by implementing
voluntary efforts to achieve reductions of particular Level I substances and through anticipated regulatory
actions under current environmental laws in both countries. In Canada, the baseline used for these milestones
will be 1988, in keeping with the Accelerated Reduction and Elimination of Toxics Program (ARET) baseline
and the 1987 GLWQA. For the United States, the baseline from which reductions will be measured is unique
for each chemical, and is identified in Attachment 1; the best available data will be used, which in most cases
is the most recent baseline.
As new information and data on opportunities become available, EC and USEPA may revise the milestones,
using a public consultation process involving their partners. In some cases, percent reductions may differ
between EC and the USEPA based on different start dates for their respective domestic toxics reduction
programs, different regulatory and legislative authorities, and different chemical data bases, baselines and
inventories.
EC and USEPA will work with their partners to:
U.S. and Canadian Challenge: Confirm by 1997, that there is no longer use, generation or release
from sources that enter the Great Lakes Basin of five bioaccumulative pesticides (chlordane,
aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex, and toxaphene), and of the industrial byproduct octachlorostyrene. If
ongoing, long-range sources of these substances from outside of the United States and Canada are
confirmed, work within existing international framework to reduce or phase out releases of the
substances.
U.S. Challenge: Confirm by 1997, that there is no longer use of alkyl-lead in automotive gasoline;
reduce or replace by 2005, alkyl-lead in aviation fuel.
Canadian Challenge: Seek by 2000, a 90% reduction in use, generation, or release of alkyl-lead
consistent with the 1994 COA.
U.S. Challenge: Seek by 2005, a 90 percent reduction nationally of high level PCBs (>500 ppm) used
in electrical equipment.
Canadian Challenge: Seek by 2000, a 90 percent reduction of high level (>50 ppm) PCBs that were
once, or are currently, in service and accelerate destruction of stored high level PCB wastes which
have the potential to enter the Great Lakes Basin, consistent with the 1994 COA.
U.S. Challenge: Seek by 2005, a 50 percent reduction nationally in the deliberate use and a 50 percent
reduction nationally in the release of mercury from sources resulting from human activity.
-------
Canadian Challenge: Seek by 2000, a 90 percent reduction in the use, generation or release of
mercury from sources resulting from human activity that enter the Basin, consistent with the 1994
COA.
U.S. Challenge: Seek by 2005, a 75 percent reduction nationally in total releases of dioxins and
furans from sources resulting from human activity. Seek by 2005, reductions nationally in releases
of Hexachlorobenzene and B(a)P from sources resulting from human activity.
Canadian Challenge: Seek by 2000, a 90 percent reduction in releases of furans, hexachlorobenzene,
B(a)P, and dioxins, from sources resulting from human activity that enter the Great Lakes Basin,
consistent with the 1994 COA.
U.S. and Canadian Challenge: Promote prevention and reduced releases of Level II substances.
Increase knowledge on sources and environmental levels of these substances.
U.S. and Canadian Challenge: Assess atmospheric inputs of persistent toxic substances. The aim of
this effort is to jointly evaluate and report on the impact of long-range transport of persistent toxic
substances from world-wide sources by 1998. If ongoing long-range sources are confirmed, work
within existing international framework to reduce releases of such substances.
U.S. and Canadian Challenge: Complete or be well advanced in remediation of priority sites with
contaminated bottom sediments in the Great Lakes Basin by 2005.
Priority Activities
To meet the above challenges, EC and USEPA will implement the four-step analytical framework outlined
earlier. Through this framework, the governments will engage key partners (i.e., those inside or outside the
Basin involved or affected by the use, generation or release of a particular chemical) in the process of setting
more specific milestones and in developing and implementing solutions to achieve those milestones. Where
possible, formal or informal agreements may be developed. EC and USEPA will publicly recognize the
successful efforts undertaken by all segments of society.
EC and USEPA will work with their partners to achieve significant further reductions in the use, generation
or release of the targeted toxic substances. Industries and others will also be challenged to reduce the use,
release, or generation of other toxic substances of concern.
hi addition, EC and USEPA will challenge municipalities, industries, product manufacturers and others outside
the Basin to reduce the use, release and generation of persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances which enter
the Great Lakes via long-range transport.
Joint Progress Measurement and Reporting Activities
The following are examples of joint priority Canadian-U.S. activities. EC and USEPA will review these joint
projects annually for additions and/or modifications.
It is recognized that measurement of releases or ambient levels is not always teasible for some of the Level
I and II substances using routine sampling and analytical techniques. EC and USEPA are committed to
adopting, where feasible or necessary, a range of indicators from process measurements (e.g., the number of
formal or informal agreements entered into with business sectors to achieve specific reductions) to
-------
environmental endpoints (e.g., fish contaminant levels) in order to measure progress. Indicators will be
identified to address the use, generation, release, and impact of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
chemicals. The Strategy recognizes that the information contributed by our ongoing joint emissions inventor)'
work will be extremely useful in addressing major sources within the jurisdictions bordering the Great Lakes.
EC and USEPA will work with federal, state, and provincial departments and agencies, to review the state of
Great Lakes related surveillance and monitoring programs with a view to improving their coordination within
existing resources to fulfill the implementation requirements of this Strategy and other critical bilateral Great
Lakes activities.
EC and USEPA commit jointly to providing a formal report of progress under this Strategy every two years
at the biennial meeting of SOLEC.
To the extent possible, these progress reports will be consistent and coordinated with progress reports both
domestically and for such efforts as the UNECE POPs Protocol, the NAFTA CEC Resolution on the Sound
Management of Chemicals, and other multilateral negotiations on POPs and heavy metals. In addition, EC
and USEPA will convene a stakeholder forum during the biennial SOLEC to evaluate the status of the Level
I and n toxic substances, to refine the challenge milestones, if appropriate, and to assess progress and identify
new opportunities. Where appropriate, these reporting structures may be modified to suit the needs for
reporting under this Strategy.
In addition, in order to assess progress toward achieving the above commitments, EC and USEPA will
establish a process for determining baseline release levels and loadings of Level I and II substances through
a data synthesis and modelling effort, based on best available data and scientific information. Progress in
release reductions will be reported biennially to the IJC and the public.
Significant Issues
EC and USEPA will work together to address significant toxic-related issues which affect the whole Great
Lakes Basin throughout the implementation of this Strategy. These issues will be selected in consultation with
our partners. For example, these issues may include the transboundary effects of incineration, the
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and bilateral sector-specific pollution prevention initiatives.
The technical support document (Attachment 1) describes more detailed action steps to be undertaken either
individually by EC and USEPA, or jointly by both, in conjunction with their partners, to meet each challenge.
Approved by:
Carol Browner Sergio Marchi
Administrator Minister of the Environment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Government of Canada
Date Date
-------
Appendix I
LEVEL I AND LEVEL II TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Level I Substances'
Aldrin/dieldrin
Benzo(a)pyrene {B(a)P}
Chlordane
DDT (+DDD+DDE)
Hexachlorobenzene
Alkyl-lead
Mercury and mercury compounds
Mirex
Octachlorostyrene
PCBs
Dioxins and Furans (2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalents)
Toxaphene
Level II Substances2
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Cadmium and cadmium compounds
1,4-dichlorobenzene
3,3 '-dichlorobenzidine
Dinitropyrene
Endrin
Heptachlor (+Heptachlor epoxide)
Hexachlorobutadiene (+Hexachloro-1,3-
butadiene)
Hexachlorocyclohexane (including alpha, beta,
delta, lindane)
4,4'-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
Methoxychlor
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachlorobenzene (1,2,3,4- and 1,2,4,5-)
Tributyl tin
Plus PAHs as a group, including but not
limited to:
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
1 Level I substances are the 11 critical pollutants identified by the
IJC's Great Lakes Water Quality Board, plus two additional critical pollutants
identified by the Lake Superior LaMP and the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
(Octachlorostyrene and chlordane).
2 Level II substances are those substances identified by the Canada-
Ontario Agreement respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA) as "Tier II"
chemicals, plus additional substances of concern identified by LaMP and FiAP
processes and the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance in the U.S.
10
-------
Technical Support Document Attachment 1
ACTIONS UNDER THE BINATIONAL STRATEGY
For the U.S.3, the baseline from which reductions will be measured in most cases is the most recent and
appropriate inventory. In the case of mercury, for example, the most recent inventory is based on estimated
emissions during the early 1990s. For Canada, the baseline is defined by a 1988 emissions inventory.
The following list of activities is not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive; rather, it is illustrative of the
many activities currently taking place or expected to take place. We understand that the states, provinces and
Great Lakes stakeholders are undertaking many additional actions to achieve toxic reductions. For purposes
of brevity, we have listed selected actions only.
Canadian and U.S. Challenge: Confirm, by 1997, that there is no longer use, generation or release from
sources that enter the Great Lakes Basin of five bioaccumulative pesticides (chlordane, aldrin/dieldrin,
DDT, mirex, and toxaphene), and of the industrial byproduct octachlorostyrene. If ongoing, long-range
sources of these substances from outside the United States and Canada are confirmed, work within
existing international framework to reduce or phase out releases of the substances.
EC and USEPA will continue to support Great Lakes watershed "clean sweeps," which receive
unwanted and hazardous agricultural chemicals for appropriate disposal. These programs have
previously received sizeable quantities of these pesticides.
EC and USEPA will undertake actions to verify that these five pesticides are no longer used,
generated or released in the Great Lakes watershed, based on the weight of evidence from use and
environmental monitoring data.
EC and USEPA will verify that octachlorostyrene (OCS) is no longer deliberately released to the
Great Lakes watershed and efforts to eliminate OCS formation as a byproduct will be promoted.
Sources of atmospheric emissions will be investigated to support documenting progress.
3When developing the Strategy and the reduction targets, the United States started with the
presumption that releases of the Level I pollutants could be reduced by roughly an order of magnitude
(90%) by 2005. Early drafts of the Strategy contained this goal. However, analysis of baseline emissions
inventories has shown in some cases that reductions of this level may not be practical from a technical or
economic standpoint. For instance, an analysis of U.S. mercury emissions shows that even a considerable
regulatory and pollution prevention effort is unlikely to result in reductions of 90 percent between 1991
and 2005. However, a reduction of roughly one-half from the emissions levels in the most recent mercury
emissions inventory is believed to be feasible. Thus, the U.S. challenge in the Binational Strategy sets a
goal of 50 percent reduction in mercury emissions by 2005.
11
-------
If ongoing local sources of toxaphene4 in Lakes Superior and Michigan are confirmed, undertake
appropriate actions to seek reductions. If ongoing long-range sources of toxaphene are confirmed,
work within existing international framework to reduce releases of the substance.
Assess and pursue recommendations from the joint U.S.-Canada technical workshop on
toxaphene in the Great Lakes, held in Spring 1996.
EC and USEPA will develop and implement a joint monitoring plan through the LaMP
monitoring committee to track toxaphene levels in Lake Superior. Monitoring of toxaphene
in Lake Michigan and the high Arctic will be integrated with Lake Superior monitoring to
track reductions in this class of pollutant.
Canadian Challenge: Seek by 2000, a 90 percent reduction in use, generation or release of alkyl-Iead,
consistent with the 1994 COA.
U.S. Challenge: Confirm by 1997, that there is no longer use of alkyl-lead in automotive gasoline; reduce
or replace by 2005, alkyl-Iead in aviation fuel.
In Canada:
It is estimated that releases of alkyl-lead (1,000 kg/yr) in Ontario are almost entirely from aviation
fuel. Minor generation through industrial or mining processes utilizing lead is possible and will be
investigated. Elimination of alkyl-lead in aviation fuel will be investigated in partnership with
responsible sources.
In the United States:
Elimination of alkyl-lead in aviation fuel will be investigated in partnership with responsible sources.
Several actions are taking place to reduce the use of lead in aviation fuel for piston engine aircraft;
analysis of possible substitutes will take place to ensure feasibility.
Canadian Challenge: Seek by 2000, a 90 percent reduction of high level (> 50 ppm) PCBs that were once,
or are currently, in service and accelerate destruction of stored high level PCB wastes which have the
potential to enter the Great Lakes Basin, consistent with the 1994 COA.
U.S. Challenge: Seek by 2005, a 90 percent reduction nationally of high level PCBs (>500 ppm) used in
electrical equipment.
In Canada:
In Ontario, 5,068 metric tonnes of high level PCB liquid remain in use, while 3,613 tonnes remain in
storage, indicating that 42% of Ontario's high level PCBs "once in use" (8,681 tonnes) have been
decommissioned. Continued efforts to decommission the remaining PCBs to meet the 90% target will
4 Refers to a complex mixture of polychlorinated bornanes with some resemblance to and some
differences from the cancelled pesticide, toxaphene.
12
-------
be pursued with a goal of "one-stop decommissioning and destruction where possible in conjunction
with owners and interested stakeholders.
The target for PCB destruction applies to the 18,614 tonnes of high-level PCB wastes now in storage:
240 tonnes have been destroyed to date. Demonstrations of new technologies for PCB destruction
are being undertaken, and shipment of PCBs to Alberta and the United States for destruction is being
undertaken or investigated, in partnership with PCB owners across Ontario. Consolidation of small
quantities for destruction, and decontamination to reduce storage/destruction volumes, is being
considered.
All federally owned PCBs in the Great Lakes watershed will be decommissioned and destroyed by
1996. A total of 17,000 tonnes of low-level PCB waste has been destroyed in Ontario, while 98,000
tonnes remains in storage. Spills, decommissioning and newly discovered PCB contaminated items
will contribute to this pool of stored material. Destruction in these instances will be accelerated.
In the United States:
Note: This section does not include PCBs released from contaminated sediments; these are dealt with under
a different challenge section of the Strategy.
PCB production was banned in the U.S. in 1977; certain uses were banned while other existing PCBs could
be used for the remainder of their useful, economic life. The most significant remaining use of high and low
level PCBs is in electrical equipment. These PCBs may pose risk due to the potential for spills. This challenge
goal is targeted at increasing the pace of removal of high-level PCBs in electrical equipment so as to minimize
the risk of releases to the environment. The challenge goal takes into account the usual process of retiring or
decommissioning electrical equipment. Reductions will be measured from the estimated 200,000 pieces of
electrical equipment containing high-level PCBs in use in 1994. In striving to reduce the amount of electrical
equipment containing high level PCBs, progress will also be achieved in reducing the number of transformers
containing low-level PCBs.
The United States has already achieved substantial reductions in the amount of PCB wastes in existence in this
country. On a national basis, the U.S. disposed of (i.e., destroyed) 1.8 billion kilograms of PCB wastes during
1990-92. In addition, a number of Great Lakes electric utilities have already removed almost 90 percent of
the PCBs that they once had in service. However, there are many users of PCBs in electrical equipment whose
progress toward phase down is unknown; this goal seeks their voluntary accelerated phase down of remaining
high- and low-level PCBs. Concurrently, as described elsewhere in this Strategy, USEPA will continue
ongoing cleanup activities involving sediment contaminated with PCBs.
U.S. progress in relation to this objective will be measured based upon data submitted to EPA
regarding PCB removals from service and of PCB wastes destroyed.
The U.S. aim is to promote accelerated removal of PCBs, with an emphasis on high level PCBs (those
>500ppm) in electrical equipment, on a voluntary basis, while ensuring compliance with present
management requirements for PCBs that may be used indefinitely.
*
USEPA will finalize rules, proposed in 1994, which aim to reduce disposal costs through reduced
administrative requirements for, and self implementation of, certain PCB activities, including those
involving decontamination (of equipment, materials) and disposal of PCBs.
13
-------
USEPA, in cooperation with Great Lakes states, may consult with potential users of PCBs such as
utilities, government facilities, commercial buildings, and manufacturing facilities, including pulp
and paper mills, steel mills, aluminum smelters, and transformer rebuilders and request their
accelerated removal of high-level PCBs (those >500 ppm) from use.
USEPA will, through the issuance of grants, promote activities involving the -collection of information
on the use, release, disposal or environmental levels of PCBs at any concentration.
USEPA will finalize rules, proposed in 1993, which aim to reduce the regulatory and economic
burdens associated with reclassifying electrical equipment by amending reclassification requirements.
USEPA will request that efforts promoting the reduction of PCBs be included in cooperative
agreements with states.
Canadian Challenge: Seek by 2000, a 90 percent reduction in the use, generation or release of mercury
from sources resulting from human activity that enter the Great Lakes Basin, consistent with the 1994
COA.
U.S. Challenge: Seek by 2005, a 50 percent reduction nationally in the deliberate use and release of
mercury from sources resulting from human activity.
Through the Lake Superior Binational Program, Canada and the United States, along with Ontario, Michigan,
Minnesota and Wisconsin, have begun implementing a zero discharge demonstration project for mercury. A
use-source tree for mercury was developed, and emission estimates generated. Strategies for reducing mercury
emissions to "zero" are being developed in consultation with the Lake Superior Binational Forum, which has
recommended to the governments a timeline for achieving zero discharge.
In Canada:
It has been estimated that between 2,700 and 3,450 kg of mercury are emitted to the atmosphere in
Ontario annually, while up to 2,500 kg are released to the waters of the Great Lakes Basin annually.
Through an analysis of mercury uses and sources, significant sources of mercury have been identified
and prioritized. These sources will be encouraged to develop strategies to reduce their emissions by
90% through adoption of pollution prevention measures.
In partnership with Pollution Probe, Canada and Ontario have identified potential industrial partners
to participate in a unique three-way initiative to reduce or eliminate mercury in industrial or
commercial applications. Coordination of this effort with United States partners is being considered,
and the findings and approaches are being shared with the United States mercury Virtual Elimination
Pilot Project.
Activities by companies to date have resulted in significant reductions in mercury content in batteries
(60-90%), fluorescent lamps (44%) and switches, while further reductions are planned, such as 70%
by fluorescent lamp manufacturers by 2000. One impact of past mercury usage is that landfill
emissions may be a very large source of mercury releases in the Great Lakes Basin, but the quantities
released and possible control mechanisms need further consideration.
14
-------
In the United States:
The primary remaining source of mercury in the Great Lakes ecosystem is atmospheric deposition of mercury
emissions, often transported over long distances. We are using the most recent mercury emissions inventor)',
i.e., that which was conducted during the early 1990's, to measure reductions. This inventory suggests that
the U.S. currently releases about 200 tons of mercury to the atmosphere annually. Standards for municipal
waste combustors (final) and medical waste incinerators (proposed) will, when implemented by 2002, provide
about a 70 ton reduction in mercury emissions, or 35% of current total U.S. emissions. Implementation of
other Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standards offer the probability of further mercury
emission reductions, though these cannot be estimated prior to their development. Direct controls on
emissions will be complemented by the promotion of innovative technologies to reduce use and increase
recycling, in order to reduce the amount of mercury entering the incinerator waste stream. Increased
consumption of fossil fuels may, however, increase mercury emissions from the utility sector. The United
States has reduced mercury use 75% during the past 15 years, most of which has occurred since 1988. Our use
reduction target is set at 50% rather than at a higher reduction target because of an anticipated slowdown in
the reduction rate. Given a 30-year trend away from mercury use in the United States, we expect companies
to continue to develop and market mercury-free alternatives as was done with alkaline batteries. Chlorine
production, for example, is the largest national use of mercury; the chlorine production process that relies on
mercury is economically inefficient, so the industry is gradually, and of its own volition, shifting to successor
technologies.
USEPA will work with the assistance of the Great Lakes states and others to consult with potential
users and releasers to seek their release and use reduction targets. Several Great Lakes states have
mercury task forces which are working with stakeholders to undertake innovative mercury pollution
prevention activities.
USEPA and their Great Lakes state partners propose to include mercury release and use reduction as
a goal to be included in the Performance Partnership Process, giving each state the opportunity to
fund state-specific mercury projects, reflective of priorities in each state.
USEPA will seek the assistance and cooperation of the Great Lakes states to target one or two specific
sectors to undertake a major voluntary effort to reduce emissions and releases.
USEPA will explore voluntary and regulatory changes with regard to mercury, e.g., labelling
requirements and reductions in use in non-essential items.
USEPA will help strengthen and streamline federal/state coordination of mercury reduction activities
by inviting participation in national mercury issues, and by helping to convene a Great Lakes
symposium on mercury reduction activities, including state mercury reduction legislation, private
sector actions, and other innovative projects.
USEPA has proposed standards for medical waste incinerators.
USEPA is developing rules for hazardous waste incinerators and cement kilns which bum hazardous
wastes. Implementation of these rules should reduce mercury emissions from these sectors.
Implementation of Clean Air Act standards for other sectors which emit mercury may provide further
reductions; it is not possible, however, to estimate resulting reductions, prior to development of these
standards.
15
-------
The U.S. federal government (DOD, EPA) will study alternatives to sale of surplus mercury from
DOD stockpiles. The U.S. government holds 11.5 million pounds of mercury, which made it one of
the world's principal suppliers before sales were suspended in 1994, pending review of environmental
implications.
USEPA will study alternatives to the incineration option for treatment of organomercuric hazardous
wastes.
Canadian Challenge: Seek by 2000, a 90 percent reduction in releases of furans, hexachlorobenzene,
B(a)P, and dioxins, from sources resulting from human activity that enter the Great Lakes Basin,
consistent with the 1994 COA.
U.S. Challenge: Seek by 2005, a 75 percent reduction nationally in total releases of dioxins and furans,
from sources resulting from human activity. Seek by 2005, reductions nationally in releases of
Hexachlorobenzene and B(a)P from sources resulting from human activity.
Through the Lake Superior Binational Program, Canada and the United States, along with Ontario, Michigan,
Minnesota and Wisconsin, have begun implementing a zero discharge demonstration project for dioxins,
furans, hexachlorobenzene and octachlorostyrene. Analysis of uses and sources for these pollutants were
developed as were emission estimates. Strategies for reducing emissions to "zero" are being developed in
consultation with the Lake Superior Binational Forum, which is considering recommendations to the
governments for a timeline for achieving zero discharge.
In Canada:
Preliminary Ontario release estimates for benzo(a)pyrene, hexachlorobenzene, 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
TCDF suggest more than 90% of the releases are direct atmospheric releases. A substantial natural
emission of B(a)P may also be present from forest fires, complicating analysis of environmental
trends in this contaminant. This analysis has identified and prioritized sources of these pollutants for
subsequent development of reduction strategies.
Through ARET, participating companies have reported reductions of hexachlorobenzene by 80% and
dioxins and furans by 98-99%. Through pollution prevention, participating companies reported 4,300
tonnes of hydrocarbon emissions and 16,000 tonnes of other wastes emissions reduced. Participation
and reporting of reductions undertaken voluntarily is growing in the Canadian portion of the Great
Lakes Basin, signalling a trend away from controls and treatment towards eliminating use and
generation. This trend will be promoted through COA in partnership with priority sources of these
pollutants in an effort to achieve the targets of 90% reduction in releases.
Both Canada and Ontario have promulgated stringent effluent requirements for the pulp and paper
sector and pulp mills have invested heavily in the past five years to achieve compliance with the
regulations. Canada and Ontario will confirm in 1996 that all mills using chlorine-based bleaching
are in full compliance with the "non-measurable" concentration requirement for effluent dioxin and
furan and have virtually eliminated PCDD and PCDF from their effluent.
PCDD, PCDF, and Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) have been assessed and declared toxic under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act. They are to be managed on a national level under Track I
(virtual elimination) of the Toxic Substances Management Policy recently announced by the federal
16
-------
government. A federal/provincial task force is being established to develop control options for
TCDD/TCDF and a multistakeholder group will also be established soon to develop options for HCB.
Similarly, control options for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) including Benzo(a)pyrene
are being developed for the major source sectors such as iron and steel and wood preservation.
In lifting its ban on new municipal waste incinerators, Ontario has adopted emissions limits at least
as stringent as the MACT standards adopted in the United States.
In the United States:
USEPA will use as an interim baseline for calculating dioxin emission reductions its September 1994 draft
dioxin reassessment Once USEPA has completed and released its final dioxin reassessment, it will use the
Reassessment's emissions inventory for 1987 as the challenge baseline. USEPA estimates that total releases
to air from all sources is 9300 grams/annually, with 5100 grams from medical waste incinerators (55%) and
3000 grams from municipal waste incinerators (32%). Over a dozen sources make up the remaining 1200
grams.
USEPA will complete its re-evaluation of the hazards presented by dioxin, released during 1994 for
public comment. The Agency will also complete a policy assessment of dioxin, anticipated to be
finalized in Spring 1997.
As mentioned above, USEPA has promulgated standards for municipal incinerators, and will finalize
standards for medical incinerators; incinerators are regarded as major sources of dioxins and furans,
as inadvertent by-products of combustion. Implementation of these standards is anticipated to reduce
releases of dioxins from these sectors by more than 75 percent by 2005.
Sizable reductions in HCB emissions are anticipated from municipal waste combustors and from
cement kilns that bum hazardous wastes. Improvement for incineration of HCB-contaminated waste
is also likely. Current information does not yet provide support for a more specific reduction
challenge but as soon as data are available, a target will be included.
Since current information does not yet provide support for a more specific reduction challenge for
B(a)P, the U.S. will continue efforts to identify and quantify emissions of PAHs (and benzo(a)pyrene
in particular). Potential reductions will be targeted as sources.
Canadian and U.S. Challenge: Promote prevention and reduced releases of Level II substances. Increase
knowledge of sources and environmental levels of these substances.
EC and USEPA will monitor levels of these contaminants in the Great Lakes and resulting impacts
on the ecosystem.
They will also continue to inventory emissions of these substances and model their loading to the
Great Lakes.
EC will develop information on the occurrence, fate and effects of organometal compounds (including
tributyl tin).
17
-------
EC will also upgrade and improve public access to an existing import/export information database
concerning imports/exports of hazardous waste.
USEPA will continue to target cadmium under the 33/50 prevention challenge program. In addition,
implementation of the Clean Air Act will substantially reduce emissions of PAHs.
Canadian and U.S. Challenge: Assess atmospheric inputs of persistent toxic substances. The aim of this
effort is to jointly evaluate and report on the impact of long-range transport of persistent toxic
substances from world-wide sources by 1998. If ongoing long-range sources are confirmed, work within
existing international framework to reduce releases of such substances.
EC and USEPA will, as a priority, coordinate efforts to identify sources of atmospheric pollutants in
order to better define and coordinate emission control programs.
EC and USEPA will maintain atmospheric deposition monitoring stations to detect deposition and
transport of persistent toxic substances.
EC and USEPA will continue research on the atmospheric science of toxic pollutants to refine and
improve existing source, receptor and deposition models, fundamental to impact assessment. They
will also improve integration of existing air toxic monitoring networks and data management systems
to track deposition of contaminants within the Great Lakes.
EC and USEPA will conduct an impact assessment of the long-range transport of persistent toxic
substances from world-wide sources by 1998.
By 1998, EC will demonstrate alternative processes to lessen emissions from 5 predominant sources.
In addition, by 2000, Canada will complete inventories of 10 selected air pollution sources to support
assessment of the environmental impacts of air toxics.
Canadian and U.S. Challenge: Complete or be well advanced in remediation of priority sites with
contaminated bottom sediments in the Great Lakes Basin by 2005.
In Canada:
Evaluate six innovative technologies developed under the auspices of the Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup
Fund (CuF) specifically for the safe removal of contaminated sediments.
Develop a computerized, searchable and user-friendly Sediment Remediation Database which will
include information on 19 technologies (bench & scale) which have been demonstrated and which
handle and treat contaminated sediments.
Describe effects, demonstrate and implement the clean up of severely contaminated sediments with
emphasis on priority RAPs/AOCs (Thunder Bay; Sault Ste. Marie; Welland; Hamilton Harbour; Port
Hope).
*
Develop long-term strategies for remediation of areas of intermediate sediment contamination in the
Great Lakes Basin (e.g., Severn Sound, Nipigon Bay, Collingwood Harbour).
18
-------
In the United States:
Continue ongoing contaminated sediment cleanup activities in the following Areas of Concern as
well as other priority areas: Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio; Fox River, WI; Grand Calurna River TdT
Marusuque River, MWI; River R^, Midtfgan; Sheboygan River, Wisconsin; St La^ nc^
New York; Niagara River, NY; and Erie Canal at Lockport, NY.
** A°CS> "* °^ COntaminaled ***, * preparation
'aaTvit it
Both federal governments will encourage and support voluntary programs by industries to reduce the
generation, use, or release of targeted contaminants.
Continue or establish partnerships with key Great Lakes industries (e.g., autos, printing) to foster
aSo^O^^
andBO 14000. This Strategy w.ll rely first and foremost on the innovative energy of our industrial
Pollution prevention programs will be promoted and encouraged at targeted industrial facilities
SS^g l° f P?? LS6S USlng 3 ^^ °f °ng°ing eff°m' includinS wi^ C Jad ^h
Polluuon Prevention Pledge Program for Ontario and ARET. Within the United States, the Common
Sense Initiative and 33/50 program will support this action.
DATE
ISSUED TO
DATE DUE
19
-------
GLOSSARY
The following definitions are for purposes of this Strategy only.
Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA): Canada and Ontario
have entered into an agreement to renew and strengthen federal-provincial planning, cooperation and
coordination in implementing actions to restore and protect the ecosystem, to prevent and control pollution
into the ecosystem, and to conserve species, populations and habitats in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.
Implementation of this agreement contributes substantially to meeting Canada's obligations under the 1987
GLWQA.
Great Lakes Basin: The Great Lakes Basin means all of the streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water
that are within the drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River at or upstream from the point at which this river
becomes the international boundary between Canada and the United States, as defined by the 1987 GLWQA.
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol signed November 18,1987:
An agreement between the United States and Canada to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the water of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.
Persistent Toxic Substances: "Any toxic substance with a half-life, i.e., the time required for the
concentration of a substance to diminish to one-half of its original value, in any mediumwater, air, sediment,
soil or biota~of greater than eight weeks, as well as those toxic substances that bioaccumulate in the tissue
of living organisms."
Source: 1987 GLWQA, expanded by the IJC's Sixth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality
Release: A release is any introduction of a toxic chemical to the environment as a result of human activity.
This includes emissions to the air; discharges from point and nonpoint sources to bodies of water; releases
to land, including spills or leaks from waste piles, contained disposal into underground injection wells, or
other sources.
Resulting from human activity: Any and all sources resulting from human activity, including but not limited
to releases from industrial or energy-producing processes, landfilling or other actions.
Toxic Substance: "Any substance which can cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic
mutations, physiological or reproductive malfunctions or physical deformities in any organism or its offspring,
or which can become poisonous after concentration in the food chain or in combination with other
substances."
Source: 1987 GLWQA
20
------- |