![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090515083954im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
GLBTS Links
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholders Forum
December 3, 2002
Welcome and Introductions
The topic of the December stakeholder forum was “linkages.” Gary Gulezian, Director Great Lakes National Program Office United States Environmental Protection Agency, welcomed stakeholders attending the meeting and introduced the theme of the day’s session being linkages among and between geographic scales. Mr. Gulezian noted that previously the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) has primarily focused on linkages at the regional scale. However, in order to reach the GLBTS’s goal of virtual elimination of toxic substances in the Great Lakes, the GLBTS will have to maximize on local, regional and global linkages. The group of speakers presenting at the stakeholder forum will reflect linkages between broad scales including United Nations initiatives, continental and North American initiatives, as well as local initiatives. Danny Epstein, Director Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada, was not able to make it to the stakeholder forum. Jim Smith attended in his place. Jim expressed Danny’s regrets for not being able to attend the stakeholder forum. Jim then introduced John Douglas, the stakeholder forum facilitator. John then introduced the day’s first speaker Victor Shantora, A/Executive Director of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation – Victor Shantora
Victor Shantora`s presentation included an overview of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), its initiatives and opportunities for linkages. Mr. Shantora began by introducing the concept of North America as one big ecosystem. The Great Lakes are one part of this large North American ecosystem and therefore are affected and affect the larger ecosystem. Linkages can be made between the GLBTS and CEC as both are concerned with common priorities.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993 between the United States, Canada and Mexico. NAFTA’s allows for an integration of three economic regions comprising of 403 million people and $11 trillion worth of goods and services. NAFTA is a unique union of two developed economies, the US and Canada and one developing one, Mexico. Recently, Mexico has joined the OECD and is in its formative stages of capacity building in effort to come to par with developed economies. NAFTA has also had an important role in changing and shaping the way in which the three countries act and cooperate together regarding environmental concerns. For instance, trade laws supersede environmental laws, as well, increased trade often leads to the deterioration of environmental quality. Initially it was believed that NAFTA would lead the three countries to share only the “lowest common denominator” of environmental standards however this has not been the case as the partners have shown willingness to cooperate and maintain higher environmental standards. A parallel accord titled the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) was signed by the three countries in 1994 to oversee environmental action. The NAAEC goals include developing:
- Integrated approaches to environmental issues
- Relationships between environment, trade and economy
- Strong enforcement of environmental laws
- Transparency and meaningful public input
The relationship between the CEC Secretariat and Working Groups is based on mutual concern amongst all 3 countries. The substance selection process therefore requires all three countries to agree on the substance. Regionally based assessments of persistent toxic substances consider persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity and transboundary movement of substances. Persistent toxic substances in Region II – North America have also been selected for the UNEP/GEF regionally based assessments. The GEF/UNEP project objectives include measuring damages and threats of PTS; providing GEF and UNEP with rational to assign priorities for future action on chemical issues; and determining differences in priorities among regions. Project outputs include establishing a network of PTS experts, producing twelve comprehensive regional reports and one global report. The project work plan will allow developing countries to come to the GEF for funding. The GEF will examine if the countries initiatives reflect GEF’s goals and will respectively allocate funding.
Comments, Questions and Answers:
- Within the next week, the CEC will be delivering its final report to the UNEP.
- A question was raised asking if there is opportunity for public discussion initiatives before projects are implemented. Mr. Shantora responded that not much thought has been given to this but if there is an ongoing interest from the community then a public forum can be initiated by the SMOC program.
- A stakeholder commented that the GLBTS has a different relationship with stakeholders as compared to other government initiatives. Disagreement amongst stakeholders has however arisen when deciding on how to deal with new substances. On what basis will SMOC consult with stakeholders and what is expected to come out of these consultation meetings? Vic answered by first stating that the CEC has a three country relationship and one of these countries still needs capacity building to deal with problems of substances. SMOC will follow a long and slow process to select substances. If new substances are put forth, then they will be put on slowly and on the basis that if one substance reaches closure then another will be added. They also hope that by May, SMOC will be in the position to move forward with the UNEP/GEF initiative and conduct a scientific study to see how they can fit into the NA system.
- A stakeholder presented his observation that the GLBTS has a really good stakeholder support system, however SMOC has seen less support for stakeholder input. Mr. Shantora responded by stating that SMOC has tried to get stakeholders involved and is keen on learning ways to better connect with stakeholders. He also commented that this topic will be a useful discussion that can be held in the future.
John Douglas then thanked Victor Shantora and introduced a change to the agenda; Greg Filyk will be speaking next in lieu of Kevin Schnoes. John then introduced Greg Filyk presenting International Actions to Control POP’s and Mercury.
International Actions to Control POP’s and Mercury – Greg Filyk
Greg Filyk is the A/Chief, Hazardous Air Pollutants group Environment Canada. Mr. Filyk began by stating that he was speaking on behalf of Environment Canada and would be using Canadian examples, but that many of the points that he would be making are shared by the US EPA. Mr. Filyk introduced linkages between GLBTS and 3 Major International Agreements: Stockholm Convention on POPs, UNECE POPs and HM Protocols and the Global Mercury Assessment. These international agreements and the BTS deal with similar issues of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs); they set goals and targets for specific action; they control intentionally and unintentionally produced substances; manage waste; and provide for adding new substances in the future. Their major difference however is their scales as the GLBTS works at a regional level while international agreements apply on a continental or global level. For the purpose of the presentation, HAPs were defined as semi-volatile persistent toxic and bio-accumulative substances (POPs and HMs) subject to long-range atmospheric transport. HAPs are of concern to Canadians, Americans and internationally because they are volatizing substances able to transport themselves over great latitudes. Presently in Canada, there is concern of HAPs in the artic region and major foreign sources are being examined (northern hemisphere contaminants).A. UNEP Stockholm Convention on POPs
The major part of the presentation focused on the Stockholm
Convention on POPs. This is a legally binding global agreement,
which has been ratified by 23 of 151 signatories. Canada was the
first to sign and ratify the agreement and US ratification is
pending. The conventions main objectives include:
- Eliminating the production and use of POP pesticides, PCBs, DDT
- Minimizing and where feasible eliminating releases of unintentionally produced POPs
- Manage POP stockpiles and wastes in an environmentally sound manner
- Develop national implementation plans: Plans will be submitted to the conference of parties.
- Addition of substances in the future
- Provide financial and technical assistance: Countries cannot meet their reduction goals within funding, developed countries will therefore provide funds to developing countries, motivating them to take action.
The US will be hosting a workshop in March 2003 on Intercessional Expert Group on BAT/BEP.
B. UNEP Global Mercury Assessment
Canada and the US require international action on mercury to
achieve domestic goals. UNEP therefore conducted a Global Mercury
Assessment (GMA) and key findings were compiled. They found that
mercury is present in the environment and there is widespread
exposure of it from anthropogenic sources. They also found that
mercury effects human health and can be transported long distances
in the atmosphere. This led to specific considerations by UNEP GMA
Working Group as they decided to act on the following:
- Take measures to reduce and/or eliminate use, emissions, discharges and losses of mercury and its compounds
- Promote international cooperation
- Conduct risk communication.
C. UNECE on POPs and HMs
While the agreement is close to being ratified, discussion on
adding substances continues. The agreements policy holds that new
substances cannot be added until the protocol has entered into
force. There is therefore no guarantee that POP substances will be
nominated but the committee continues to prepare for their
consideration. Further information can be found at
http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/pops_h1.htm
.
Conclusion:
Greg Filyk stressed that regional and local action is really were
all the work occurs even though agreements are executed globally.
Regional and local work is critical to achieving international
standards. He also noted that what improvements made within an
ecosystem always bring benefits outside of that ecosystem. For
example, take what Canada does at home and promote it abroad
(Canadian Perspective). Controls that have been developed and
implemented here can be used as a tool to implement globally.
Comments, Questions and Answers
- A stakeholder asked the question of whether UNEP has binding and non-binding agreements. Greg provided a personal observation that it is difficult to promote legally binding agreements such as the Stockholm Convention. Legally binding agreements are also more costly and resource intensive. UNEP therefore often chooses to take action that does not require binding agreements.
- A question was raised about a possible Plan B if the minimum number of 50 of 151 signatory countries do not ratify the Stockholm Convention? Greg answered that 151 have signed the Convention showing that they have intentions of ratifying. Presently 23 countries have ratified the agreement. UNEP is trying its best to provide capacity and resources for countries to ratify. There is therefore presently no Plan B because they are confidant that Plan A will work. Greg also noted that it is a bit disappointing that we cannot get the required ratification from developed countries as only 27 more need to ratify and 16 developed must ratify.
City of Chicago Corridor Initiative Industrial Outreach Program – Kevin Schnoes
Kevin Schnoes was presenting on behalf of the City of Chicago, Department of Environment. He discussed one of their local initiatives to modify two existing programs to focus on level I and level II substances. The corridor initiative was a voluntary, non regulatory program offered to local industry giving them an opportunity to receive free technical assistance in and identifying and implementing pollution prevention (P2) opportunities as well as energy efficiency (E2) opportunities. The project team consisted of members from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Office of P2, the Illinois department of natural resources waste management and resource center and ComEd while funding came from the City of Chicago. Local industry was encouraged to participate and appreciated the programs efforts to help them lower operating costs. This goal was primary in attracted facilities to participate. The big picture goal was however to improve environmental performance, encouraging them to use sustainable development mechanisms and improve relations between neighboring communities, especially housing communities launching complaints against industrial facilities.
Industrial facilities received a one day free P2/E2 audit which cost approximately $25, 000 each. The auditors then provide the facility with a comprehensive audit report that includes P2/E2 opportunities and recommendations for implementing proposed measures as well as cost savings for the facility. Facilities were also offered assistance with their waste management and disposal systems and often received an intern from the IEPA to provide technical assistance for P2/E2 projects. The Department of Environment also conducts a variety of inspections within the City. The team of 23 inspect over 20,000 sites annually and issue approximately 1,900 permits for equipment and potential to emit air pollutants. This program can be changed to address the binational strategy by expanding inspections and conducting training for inspectors on sources of level I and II substances. Facilities can also be entered into the GIS database. The corridor initiative can be modified to select facilities for audit based on potential for level I and II substances. Future activities can also be focused in target areas. This same model can also be used to implement the initiative in other cities.
Comments, Questions and Answers:
- Issues of compliance did not become issues during the audit because most of the auditors were members of non-enforcement bodies. The auditors however identified compliance violations and relayed them to the facilities but did not enforce against them.
- This was the first corridor to be addressed and 2 workshops, mass mailings and one on one consults were conducted to promote the initiative. 60-70 facilities came to the workshops, 20 were interested, 13 singed up – one of which went bankrupt. Of the 13 facilities, 3 are implementing recommendations.
- The facilities gave testimonials at workshops telling others the benefits of participating in the initiatives. This helped promote the success of the initiative.
- A violation penalty fund from Commonwealth Edison was used to fund the project. Funds also came from permitting fees, licenses, fines and penalties. The City of Chicago, EPA, Ministry of Natural Resources, and ComEd conducted audits.
- Participating in the initiative did not give any direct credit to a firm for being found for a violation but a few facilities with compliance issues had the opportunity to work cooperatively with the EPA to reach compliance. The EPA was more willing to work with the facilities that participated.
- A stakeholder offered an example of the Clean Sweeps where 350 inspectors were trained to recognize PCP and mercury. Kevin responded that this would be a good example to learn from and that it should be discussed later.
- In the corridor program, most of the funding went towards the audits. Now the City is looking for funding to help facilities actually change management practices and adopt proper disposal and waste management systems. Funding to help all facilities to do this is yet not available.
- Industries that participated included companies from the food industry, metal finishers, chemical companies, small companies that could not afford, as well as larger companies such audits.
- A stakeholder asked the question of who will train inspectors on P2 and what are the level I and II substances mentioned in the presentation (BTS substances)? Kevin responded that BTS level I and II will be used. In order to train their inspectors, the will use the waste management resource center and are looking at other avenues to conduct this training.
Reporting on the Strategy:
PCB Challenge – Ken De, EC and Tony Martig, US EPA
Canada will continue its challenge to reach 90% reductions and
has presently reached 84% reductions (2002). Canada has also seen a
decrease in PCB storage sites. Canadian federal PCB regulations will
include phase out initiatives of PCBs in 3 years (
www.ec.gc.ca/PCB
).
The US has reduced transformers by 35% and Capacitators by 10%
(reductions may be greater). The US is working on national/regional
PCB outreach/phase out efforts at federal facilities and private
facilities. They are also working on the MPCA small quantity owner
disposal cooperative and the US PBT National Action Plan for PCBs.
Workgroup activities in 2002 included getting voluntary reductions
of PCB from electrical equipment, developing and implementing an
outreach and communications plan, continue development of the PCB
web page, and conduct source emissions studies. Barriers and
challenges include the need to implement the BTS communications
strategy to reach more stakeholders as well as the need to focus on
priority industry sectors.
Dioxin Challenge – Anita Wong, EC and Erin Newman, US EPA
Canada has reached 79% reductions of total releases within the GL
Basin (goal 90%) and the US has reached 77% reductions on total
releases within the US (goal 75%). Barriers and challenges include
information gaps in inventories of dioxin, as it is difficult to
quantify and measure sources. Challenges have also been seen in
engaging stakeholders to help fill gas, the lack of data and
difficulty estimating measurable results. Upcoming action includes
continuing the implementation of the burn barrel strategy, reviewing
waste management guidelines, testing residential wood stoves,
updating information for incinerators ash management and landfill
fires and to address information gaps. Another initiative includes
the household garbage burning educational initiative. More
information can be found at
http://www.c2p2online.com
.
Mercury Challenge – Robert Krauel, EC and Alexis Cain, US EPA
US goals include a 50% reduction in use and air emissions of
mercury nationwide by 2006. Presently, 40% emissions reductions and
50% use reductions has been reached. Canada’s challenge is to
achieve 90% reductions in the release of mercury or where warranted
the use of mercury in the Great Lakes Basin by 2000. Presently they
have reached 78% reductions. Canada has seen a decreasing trend of
mercury emissions in the last 30 years. This has greatly been due to
linkages with other mercury programs including the CEC program and
the IJC. The workgroup will continue to promote mercury reductions
in steel scrap, promote reduced releases from the dental sector,
address industrial boilers, continued tracking of use and releases
and begin to track results in the environment.
B(a)P/HCB Challenge – Tom Singh, Consultant to EC and Steve
Rosenthal, US EPA
The US does not have a quantitative challenge because of the
natural uncertainty of the amount of sources of BaP and HCBs. The US
has reached 90% reductions from chlorinated solvents and pesticide
manufacturing and have reached 65% reductions from coke ovens and
over 90% reductions from primary aluminum. Canada goal is to achieve
90% reductions in their releases resulting from human activity in
the Great Lakes Basin consistent with the Canada Ontario Agreement
by 2000. Canada has presently reached 65% reductions of HCB and 48%
reductions in BaP. Barriers include the lack of chemical use and
emissions data as all of the sources are not reflected in the
inventory. As well, there is a need to recruit work group members
and a need to initiative more sector specific projects. The
workgroup will continue to work with pesticides and other sectors to
refine release estimates, will meet with facilities not reporting
low confidence NPRI estimates, will conduct voluntary stack testing,
new prevention projects and will continue outreach on residential
wood combustion.
Pesticides, Alkyl-lead and OCS – Edwina Lopes, EC
Challenge goals for Alkyl lead have been reached and the
workgroup will continue to follow international and national
developments on reduction efforts to remaining permitted uses. The
workgroup will also hold meetings as appropriate for outreach and
technology transfer however work group efforts remain limited.
Pesticide goals have also been reached but the workgroup will
continue to track progress on level I pesticides in environmental
media, will monitor long range transport, will continue the clean
sweeps in the Great Lakes states and will follow national and
international reevaluations of level II pesticides. The OCS goals
have also been achieved and the workgroup will continue to evaluate
new monitoring data and engage sources identified by the TRI. No
plans however exist for future work group activity.
Long Range Transport – Todd Nettensheim, US EPA and S. Venkatesh,
EC
The workgroup is looking to hold a workshop to consult with
worldwide experts on long-range transport. Questions addressed to
the speakers will focus on what the GLBTS can add to existing
long-range transport efforts. The EC and the US EPA have organized a
workshop planning committee and the workshop is planned to be held
in the summer of 2003.
Closing Remarks
Jim Smith presented closing remarks on behalf of himself and Gary Gulezian. Jim thanked the speakers for taking their time to make and prepare the day’s presentations. He also appreciated that the presentations helped give a sense of ways to improve Strategy’s work. Jim noted that thinking of North America as an ecosystem is an interesting thought and that the BTS can use this thought to build on linkages. International and global dialogue also reflects linkages that can be used to help eliminate toxic substances in the Great Lakes. Local actions such as LAMPS are critical to regional and national work, which become critical to international negotiations. Work being done by the BTS is therefore also helping on an international level. Jim concluded by thanking stakeholders for bringing their ideas and thoughts forward and pushing the day’s dialogue further. He also thanked the BTS co-chairs for their presentations. He encouraged member to read the draft progress reports, available today. The environmental indicators section provides significant information on the progress of indicators. Stakeholders are requested to send feedback on the progress report to Batelle by Jan 3. Jim then thanked the US EPA and EC teams for organizing today’s meeting.
Attendees
|
Adsit, Dan Bailey, Bob Batchu, Hanu Berglund, Peter Bley, Douglas Bonte, Gelok-Shelly Brauer, Sue Brooks, Ned Brown, Tim Cain, Alexis Case, Charles (Randy) Cirino, Yamille Collins, James De, Ken Downes, James Dungan, Arthur Estreicher, Herbert Filyk, Greg Gilkeson, John Gillies, Bruce Gulezian, Gary Hagreen, Leah Hall, John Hayes, Lorrie Heinrich, Jon Hogg, Darryl Holder, Cornel Hopkins, Dan Jackson, John Kaatz, Lin Karaway, Ron Kim, Duck Kizlauskas, Anthony Krauel, Bob Kuper, George Larson, Nancy Lopes, Edwina Lynch, Dennis |
Malhotra, Madhu McAlear, Hugh Menkedick, John Michajluk, Shawn Michaud, David Nameth, Susan Nettesheim, Todd Nowicki, Tom O'Donnell, Patty Phenicie, Dale Phillips, E. Marie Piekarz, Darrell Rees, Madsen Risotto, Steve Rosenthal, Steven Russ, Michael Samek, Linda Santarcangelo, Joe Schnoes, Kevin Schuchardt, Mel Scott, Grace Shantora, Victor Simon, Robert Smith, Ted Stone, Mark Storms, Cheri Strader, Evelyn Thomas, Amy Tseng, Tom Van Loon, James Varadhi, Satya Waffle, Alan Wardlaw, Craig White, Erin Winters, Dwain Wooster, Margaret Wong, Anita Yang, Karen |