Mr. Tom Baldini, Chair, U.S. Section, International Joint Commission
Ms. Mary Gusella, Chair, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission

Tom and Mary:

On behalf of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, we are pleased to provide the attached review of the Canada-United States Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. We believe that its advice and recommendations will contribute to achievement of the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

We wish to highlight the close interaction that took place throughout the review between the Board's Progress Review Work Group and those charged with implementation of the Strategy. Because of their ongoing dialogue, the Parties were in a position to give timely consideration to the Work Group's advice. The Parties' commentary (Appendix B) on the report's recommendations clearly reflects their responsiveness to, and early adoption of advice arising from the review.

Thank you for the opportunity to assist and advise the Commission.

REVIEW OF PROGRESS UNDER THE CANADA-UNITED STATES GREAT LAKES BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY A Report to the Great Lakes Water Quality Board by the Progress Review Work Group November 13, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and Background

Parties' Review of Report

What Is the Strategy?

Strategy Assessment

    Has the Strategy Achieved its Purpose?

    Has the Strategy Fulfilled its Four Steps?

    Have the Strategy's Specific Challenges Been Met?

    Has the Strategy Contributed to Achievement of Virtual Elimination?

    Strengths and Weaknesses

Future Directions and Recommendations

Appendices

    A.    Members - Progress Review Work Group

    B.    Parties' Review of Work Group Report

    C.    Thompson Gow & Associates Report to the Progress Review Work Group

1.    Level I Contaminants

2.    Binational Toxics Strategy Challenges

3.    Four-Step Analytical Framework

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement committed Canada and the United States to virtually eliminate inputs of persistent toxic substances to the Great Lakes system in order to protect human health and to ensure the continued health and productivity of living aquatic resources and their human use. On April 7, 1997, Environment Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. The purpose of the Strategy

"is to set forth a collaborative process by which Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with other federal Departments and agencies, Great Lakes states, the Province of Ontario, Tribes, and First Nations, will work in cooperation with their public and private partners toward the goal of virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances resulting from human activity, particularly those which bioaccumulate, from the Great Lakes Basin, so as to protect and ensure the health and integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. ... An underlying tenet of this Strategy is that governments cannot by their actions alone achieve the goal of virtual elimination. This Strategy challenges all sectors of society to participate and cooperate to ensure success."

The Strategy provides a framework to achieve specific actions - presented as 13 challenges - between 1997 and 2006 for 12 Level I and 14 Level II substances or families of substances. The Level I contaminants are presented in Table 1 and the 13 challenges in Table 2. The Strategy is available on the web at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/index.html . The web site also contains information which describes the Strategy's organization as well as numerous reports prepared by the Strategy's Integration Group and its seven substance-specific work groups, to which the reader is referred for details.

In late 1999, the International Joint Commission asked its Great Lakes Water Quality Board to assess progress made under the Strategy and the contribution of the Strategy toward achievement of the Agreement's virtual elimination goal. To carry out this charge, the Board convened a Progress Review Work Group. The Work Group contracted with Thompson Gow & Associates (TGA) with a mandate to review:

• The Strategy's purpose - "to set forth a collaborative process."
• The Strategy's four steps (Table 3):
• Information gathering.
• Analysis of regulations, initiatives, and programs which manage or control substances.
• Identification of cost-effective options to achieve further reductions.
• Implementation of actions to work toward the goal of virtual elimination.

• The Strategy's 13 challenges.

TGA undertook both a quantitative and a qualitative review. Their quantitative assessment is based exclusively on the contents of the Strategy's various written reports. The purpose of the quantitative assessment was to determine the adequacy of the information base and ascertain measures undertaken to fill information gaps. Specifically, this portion of the review focused on the availability of information to characterize and quantify contaminant sources, uses, and loadings and whether the information was sufficient to establish a baseline as a point of departure for the Strategy's substance-specific challenges, establish reduction targets, and measure progress toward those targets.

The qualitative assessment consisted of in-depth interviews with 25 individuals involved with Strategy activities. The purpose of the interviews was to glean people's perceptions about the Strategy and its success.

TGA's detailed findings and assessment are presented in Appendix C. The Work Group believes that their advice and 45 recommendations will contribute to the increased effectiveness of the Strategy.

In this report to the Board, we present:

• A summary assessment of the Strategy and its contribution toward achievement of virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances.
• Issues, areas, or directions that the Parties to the Strategy, and their partners, could take to achieve additional progress toward virtual elimination.
• Ten specific recommendations.

The Work Group's intent is to provide constructive and insightful advice. It is also important to recognize that the work of the Strategy is ongoing, with a ten-year (1997-2006) mandate, and that this review is a snapshot in time.

PARTIES' REVIEW OF REPORT

The Work Group presented its report to the Board on August 22, 2001. The Board, in turn, requested that the Parties review the report prior to its submission to the Commission. That request and the Parties' response are presented in Appendix B.

WHAT IS THE STRATEGY?

TGA's assessment revealed that people hold different perceptions of the Strategy and that those perceptions temper their opinion of its relative success. Some hold that the Strategy is a process, others that it is action oriented. The Strategy's four steps, given in Table 3, reveal that the Strategy is both. Initially, much of the emphasis was on process (Steps 1 - 3) but, during the past year, emphasis has shifted more toward action (Step 4).

The Strategy's title may be confusing. The Strategy is not a comprehensive initiative to deal with all aspects of the persistent toxic substance issue but is one among many. ⁽¹⁾ Given the range of perceptions, the Strategy's contribution to resolution of the persistent toxic substance issue may require clarification.

1. Among the array of programs and initiatives that address persistent toxic substances are:

• The Agreement's Remedial Action Plans and Lakewide Management Plans.
• The U.S. PBT (Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics) initiative, NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System), Superfund, Project XL, TRI (Toxics Release Inventory), and the MACT (maximum achievable control technology) program.
• Canada's NPRI (National Pollutant Release Inventory) and ARET (Accelerated Reduction/Elimination of Toxics).
• Ontario's MISA (Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement) program.
• The Centre for Environmental Cooperation's NARAP (North American Regional Action Plan).
• The United Nations Environment Program's POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) Protocol.

STRATEGY ASSESSMENT

Has the Strategy Achieved its Purpose?

The injury caused by persistent toxic contaminants has long been recognized, but efforts to achieve their virtual elimination, over more than a quarter century, have proved to be a seemingly intractable challenge. The Strategy was intended to help surmount this barrier. TGA's assessment concludes that the Strategy has achieved its purpose, presented above, "to set forth a collaborative process," engaging stakeholders and partners to address the 13 challenges. In so doing, the Strategy has helped maintain an essential focus on Level I substances.

Has the Strategy Fulfilled its Four Steps?

Step 1. Information Gathering

Step 1 commits U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, in cooperation with their partners, to gather information. The Strategy's work groups have gathered extensive information on uses, loadings, sources, and pathways of Level I contaminants. This information is helping in the development of initiatives, both through the Strategy and other mechanisms, to manage releases from selected sources. The Strategy's work illustrates the formidable task of assessing information so that appropriate response can be developed.

Some information gaps were identified or reconfirmed. TGA's assessment was, however, not designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of those gaps.

TGA found that some source categories are not under active consideration within the Strategy. This may be due to the fact that information is not yet available regarding the presence or absence of Level I contaminants in those sources and, if present, quantification of their release. Thus, there may be major contaminant sources or source categories that are not being addressed. Other sources are believed to be insignificant, and filling those data gaps may have been deemed a low priority.

Work is under way to fill some information gaps, especially to confirm whether certain sources or source categories contribute Level I contaminants and, if so, how much. This information is necessary in order to identify and implement measures to achieve further reductions. As additional information is acquired about sources, uses, and releases of Level I contaminants, some redirection or refocusing within the Strategy may be necessary.

Step 2. Analysis of Regulations, Initiatives, and Programs

Step 2 commits to the analysis of current regulations, initiatives, and programs which manage or control substances. TGA's assessment confirmed that regulations, initiatives, and programs were identified and analyzed. However, the scope of TGA's review was not intended to evaluate the Strategy's analysis or the success of individual options but, rather, only to determine whether analyses were done.

Step 3. Options for Further Reductions

Step 3 commits to the identification of cost-effective options to achieve further reductions. TGA's review confirmed that the Strategy work groups have completed or partially completed identification of cost-effective options. The review was designed to determine whether options were identified, not whether these were necessarily the right options. Notably, although considerable Canadian information has been developed for HCB, B(a)P, PCBs, and mercury, the information was not included in Strategy reports.

Step 4. Implementation of Actions

Step 4 commits to implementation of actions to work toward the goal of virtual elimination. TGA's analysis revealed that a wide range of actions have been undertaken to further reduce the use and/or release of Level I contaminants, and presumably detailed plans will be developed to implement additional actions.

There is clearly a need for more emphasis on Step 4 and, given the array of programs and initiatives in both countries, ¹ to clarify the specific contributions that the Strategy can make. Recognizing the varied mandates among these programs and the need for coordination, an accountability framework may be useful to improve delivery of tangible reductions in the use and/or release of contaminants and achieve improvements in environmental quality. Such a framework should define roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, provide performance or reporting benchmarks, as well as feedback and assessment mechanisms.

Have the Strategy's Specific Challenges Been Met?

TGA has provided detailed assessment, advice, and recommendations for the Strategy's 13 challenges. Rather than discussing the details here, we urge U.S. EPA, Environment Canada, and their partners to evaluate the insight presented in Appendix C. We discuss here a number of broader considerations.

Time Frame

The base year for the challenges go as far back as 1988. For some contaminants, notably alkyl lead and pesticides, the challenges were met, in whole or in part, based on actions taken and largely or fully completed prior to the Strategy's signing in 1997. This raises the question of what contribution the Strategy made and the rationale for including such challenges in the first place.

Baselines and Targets

Some of the Strategy's 13 challenges, in whole or in part, lack quantitative baselines and/or targets, e.g. for dioxins / furans and octachlorostyrene in the U.S. and PCBs in Canada; consequently, it is difficult or impossible to gauge progress. In addition, some of the Strategy's progress reports present percentage reductions, but without supporting quantitative baseline or current-year information, e.g. B(a)P.

Scope

The wording of some of the Strategy's challenges lacks specificity, e.g. "assess atmospheric inputs of Strategy substances to the Great Lakes." Although such wording ensures that activity can be demonstrated, the lack of specific targets prevents quantification of progress toward virtual elimination.

A number of the substance-specific challenges address only selected portions of the issue related to that Level I substance, e.g. the PCB challenges consider only selected contaminant concentrations and uses. It is unclear whether there are gaps in the overall array of programs necessary to achieve virtual elimination, in particular, programs related to contaminated sediment, atmospheric inputs, and groundwater.

Contaminated Sediment

According to the Commission's 10 ^th Biennial Report, released in July 2000, "The persistent toxic substances found in contaminated sediment are the dominant issue in the Areas of Concern." Although the magnitude of the issue has been well recognized for many years, the Commission reported that only a very small percentage of known contaminated sediment by volume has been remediated in both countries.

The Strategy's Integration Group undertook the sediment challenge, which reads, "Complete or be well advanced in remediation of priority sites with contaminated bottom sediments in the Great Lakes Basin by 2006." In the Strategy's progress report for 2000, a reporting format was presented "to track sediment remediation activities occurring in the Great Lakes Basin." The progress report also summarized sediment issues in Canadian AOCs.

Other than tracking and reporting, the Strategy's contribution to date to help resolve the contaminated sediment issue is not evident. None of the step reports mention remediation of contaminated sediment in AOCs. Some interviewees expressed the opinion that active involvement is an inappropriate Strategy role, while others felt otherwise. There is a need to clarify the Strategy's role. If there is an active contribution to be made, the challenge should be quantified and made explicit. If there is no role for the Strategy other than tracking and reporting, then the Parties and jurisdictions need to actively remediate contaminated sediment through other available mechanisms.

Atmospheric Inputs

The Commission's International Air Quality Advisory Board has firmly established the significance of atmospheric transport and deposition of contaminants into the Great Lakes basin, and the Board has contributed to the identification and quantification of emission sources to the atmosphere. The atmospheric challenge, while not quantitative, has contributed to maintaining a focus on the atmospheric pathway and an impetus to identify, quantify, and control emission sources through other mechanisms available to the Parties and jurisdictions.

The Integration Group, which undertook the atmospheric challenge, has considered some links between the Strategy and other specific air deposition efforts. Nonetheless, the Parties and jurisdictions should investigate whether the Strategy can make a more direct contribution with consideration to such activities as emission source reduction and elimination, for example, from fossil fuel combustion; stack and fugitive emissions testing; and modeling of contaminant transport, dispersal, and deposition.

Has the Strategy Contributed to Achievement of Virtual Elimination?

TGA's interviews yielded a range of opinions. Some felt that the Strategy has contributed to achieving the virtual elimination goal by spurring existing programs and spawning new initiatives, as well as stimulating work to fill information gaps. Examples of specific contributions are given in Appendix C.

Others were less certain of the Strategy's impact. The Strategy is but one initiative in a panoply of interconnected initiatives and programs, ¹ many of which were well under way when the Strategy was signed in 1997. The Strategy may have had a direct or indirect influence on these, but a cause-effect relationship cannot necessarily be established.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The Strategy's strengths and benefits, described in some detail in Appendix C, should be encouraged, promoted, and expanded. To highlight, the Strategy:

• Contributes to the assembly and expanded use of extant information, as well as the development of additional information, for example, stack emissions testing and modeling.
• Helps develop networks to engage industry, trade and professional associations, and others, enabling voluntary action to achieve reductions beyond regulatory requirements.
• Provides coordination and collaboration for the sharing of information and experiences and the transfer of programs from one jurisdiction or locale to another, for example, mercury use elimination initiatives.
• Contributes to keeping the persistent toxic substances issue on the radar screen, to stimulate and "validate" initiatives, particularly by the states and province.
• Promotes linkages, and thus support, for the conduct of other enabling mechanisms at the regional, national, and international scales.
• Contributes to reduction of areal sources, such as burning, an area that many be unfamiliar to some and which leads to consideration of behavior of individuals.

Among the Strategy's weaknesses are:

• Organization. There appears to be a problem with coordination and oversight of Strategy activities and a question about ultimate responsibility. The Strategy's Integration Group and the substance-specific work groups appear to be too diffusely focused. Their roles and responsibilities, including the Integration Group's support to the substance-specific work groups, should be defined and confirmed.
• The work appears to be bilateral rather than binational, i.e. Canada and the United States conduct separate rather than joint programs and reporting.
• Information management. The Strategy's web site is seriously outdated, with the notable absence of Canadian information sources.
• Reporting. The Strategy's challenge and step reports do not necessarily indicate which information inventories are being used, and some are not linked to the Strategy's web site or are not publicly available. In addition, it is unclear how top sources for certain Level I substances were identified. The Strategy's progress reports in some cases lack quantitative baseline and current-year information, present incomplete information, or lack Canadian information. With progress not clearly expressed or substantiated, one can question, rightly or wrongly, whether there indeed has been progress.
• Profile. The Strategy could be used to greater advantage if its profile were raised and its opportunities actively promoted.

The voluntary nature of the Strategy is perceived as both an asset and a liability. On the one hand, it facilitates stakeholder opportunities and participation in activities beyond regulatory requirements. On the other hand, some people believe that, given limited resource availability, regulatory programs and requirements should take precedence over voluntary initiatives such as the Strategy. Further, the Strategy is but one of many initiatives competing for time and resources.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Work Group has considered the direction(s) that the Strategy could follow for the remainder of its mandate. Its work to date is to be commended and activities presently under way - including the assembly of quantitative source, use, and release information and the implementation of Step 4 actions - are beneficial and should continue. We offer the following suggestions to extend and expand the use of the Strategy and its contribution to virtual elimination.

TGA's Findings, Advice, and Recommendations

TGA's detailed assessment of the Strategy is presented in Appendix C, along with 45 detailed recommendations. The Work Group commends their assessment to the Strategy's Integration Group and substance-specific work groups. TGA's advice and recommendations will contribute to the increased effectiveness of the Strategy for the remainder of its mandate. The Work Group recommends that:

Focus

The Work Group recognizes that application of a range of tools and techniques is necessary to achieve virtual elimination. However, to ensure that Level I substances are not produced or used in the first place, the Work Group recommends that:

The need is to develop and apply tools, incentives, and partnerships that will get those who produce and/or use persistent toxic substances to take ownership of the problem and be motivated to actively contribute to its solution. Dedication of sufficient human and financial resources to develop and apply pollution prevention solutions is essential. Among the solutions is active promotion and application of "clean" technology over end-of-pipe controls. With active commitment by all stakeholders, the Strategy's Step 4 actions can be more fully realized.

Publicity

The Work Group recommends that:

Convincing the Great Lakes community that the benefits of virtual elimination outweigh the costs is perhaps "the" challenge. Publicity should emphasize the impact on human and ecosystem health, including the economic, social, and other costs associated with not taking timely action. By also publicizing the advantages and benefits of virtual elimination and the opportunities available, the Strategy can garner support and prompt behavior change among both the general public and all sectors of the Great Lakes community. Implicit in its publicity, the Strategy should improve the quality of its step and progress reports and the currency of information posted on its web site.

Partnerships

Building upon the Strategy's voluntary approach - a complement to the regulatory approach of the Parties and jurisdictions - the Work Group recommends that:

Community partners include:

• The public - their role in the production, use, and/or release of persistent toxic substances and their active support to drive reduction initiatives by governments, industry, and others.
• Environmental non-government organizations - to take advantage of their grass-roots linkages and opportunities to undertake pilot and demonstration projects.
• Tribes and First Nations - to implement programs within territory under their jurisdiction.
• State, provincial, and local governments - to tap their expertise and networks, in order to create further awareness and support, leading to development and implementation of additional programs.
• Federal governments - to ensure high-level political and policy support, leading to provision of sufficient human and financial resources to undertake Strategy work, especially Step 4 actions, including scale-up of pilot work, jurisdictional program and technology transfer, and program expansion to other jurisdictions.
• Industry and trade associations - to reach a broader spectrum of companies and business sectors. Larger companies and trade associations can provide leadership and outreach to small- and medium-sized enterprises, through such means as active promotion of a life-cycle approach, supply chain initiatives, extended producer responsibility, end-of-use product takeback and, most importantly, the development and implementation of alternative processes that avoid the generation, use, and release of Level I substances.

In its approach to the Great Lakes community, the Strategy should promote options to strengthen integration and to expand coordination, cooperation, and partnerships including, but not limited to additional voluntary measures, education, training, economic incentives, and financial inducements.

Sector-Based Initiatives

The Work Group recommends that:

5.    The Strategy develop sector-based initiatives that deal with more than one contaminant at a time.

The Strategy should promote the potential savings and efficiencies of such an approach, for both remediation and pollution prevention.

Stockpiled and Stored Contaminants

The Air Board has reported that PCBs volatilize from landfills and storage yards, and recent studies confirm that mercury can methylate in, and volatilize from landfills. The Work Group recommends that:

For contaminants such as mercury, which cannot be destroyed, stocks should be immobilized in a chemically inert form and stored so as to prevent any release to the environment.

Relationships with Other Programs

The Strategy is one of many programs and initiatives designed to address components of the persistent toxic substance issue. ¹ Clear coordination and effective linkages are essential. The Strategy's relationship with RAPs and LaMPs is particularly unclear. Is the Strategy relying on these Annex 2 requirements as mechanisms to deliver on selected challenges, especially in regard to contaminated sediment and atmospheric transport, or are the RAPs and LaMPs awaiting active leadership from the Strategy? The Work Group recommends that:

8.    The Strategy clarify its linkages to, and coordination with other contaminant reduction and elimination initiatives.

9.    The Strategy clarify its role in the remediation and clean-up of contaminated sediment, land, and soil.

Groundwater

Some of the Strategy's work groups have considered contaminant loss from landfills and underground storage tanks. However, the Strategy has no stated role in regard to remediation and protection of groundwater. This issue cannot be avoided. Groundwater poses a significant challenge to the restoration and protection of the Great Lakes. There may be gaps in the programs of the Parties and jurisdictions to contain the movement of, and remediate contaminated groundwater, and to prevent further contamination from such sources as landfills, underground storage tanks, and land-use practices, such as pesticide application. The Work Group recommends that:

APPENDIX A. MEMBERS - PROGRESS REVIEW WORK GROUP

APPENDIX B. PARTIES' REVIEW OF WORK GROUP REPORT

Request to the Parties - October 23, 2001

and

Reply from the Parties - November 8, 2001

Great Lakes Water Quality Board

Memorandum

October 23, 2001

To:
Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, U.S. EPA
Danny Epstein, Regional Director, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada

From:
Marty P. Bratzel, Secretary, Great Lakes Water Quality Board

Subject: Review of Report on the Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy

On August 22, the Board received, from its Progress Review Work Group, a report that assessed progress under the Great Lakes Binational Toxic Strategy. That report, accompanied by a report prepared by the consultant, Thomson Gow & Associates, has already been provided to you.

The Board considered the Work Group's report at its most recent meeting on October 17. The Board finds that the report contains useful information. However, since the Work Group's assessment draws, in part, upon people's perceptions about the Strategy, the Board believes that the report would benefit from your review, as the Parties' representatives responsible for implementation of the strategy.

The Board would appreciate your clarification and verification of the material of the report, so that the Work Group's advice and recommendations will be more beneficial and useful to all concerned. Any additional information would also be appreciated. Please direct your response, in electronic format, to me at bratzelm@windsor.ijc.org (.)

Our request for your assistance pertains only to the Work Group's report, not the report prepared by TGA.

The Board intends to provide its advice about the Strategy for the Commission to consider at its next meeting on December 4-6, 2001. In order to allow sufficient time for the Work Group to consider your response and, in turn, advise the Board, we would appreciate receiving your reply no later than Friday, November 2, 2001.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 519.257.6701. Thank you.

November 8, 2001

Mr. David Ullrich , U.S. Co-Chair, Water Quality Board

Mr. John Mills, Canadian Co-Chair, Water Quality Board

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Water Quality Board (WQB) Workgroup's draft review of the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) Report. As co-chairs of this important work, we welcome the opportunity to provide you with clarification and verification of the material contained within this report.

We would like to commend the workgroup members for the effort they have put into the review. From our perspective, the work within the GLBTS is at a critical point. We have completed most of Stage 1 through 3 and are developing implementation strategies. As such, many of the issues identified in the report are issues we have been discussing internally with our staff, as well with the GLBTS Integration Workgroup. From this perspective, the WQB's report has the potential for being a very supportive document.

We would also like to take this opportunity to provide further clarity with respect to the Integration Workgroup and all of the Substance Workgroups. We believe the roles and responsibilities of the Integration Workgroup and the Substance Workgroups are well defined and not diffusely focused as suggested in the report. The Substance Workgroups have taken their direction directly from the 4-step analytical framework as defined in the Strategy. The Integration Workgroup responsibilities were developed in a GLBTS Stakeholder meeting held on June 26, 1997, where a GLBTS implementation plan was developed. This plan has been the guiding principles for GLBTS group activities.

With respect to the specific recommendations, we are providing the following comments for your consideration:

Recommendation #1: The Strategy's Integration and substance- specific work groups review and consider the advice and recommendations presented in the Thompson Gow & Associates Report.

We agree that a closer review of the Thompson Gow Report is likely to provide some additional insight when implementing actions in support of Strategy Challenges. The report will be shared with the Workgroups and Integration Group.

Recommendation #2: The Strategy's focus firmly remains on Pollution Prevention.

The Strategy actively promotes the application of clean technology over end-of-pipe controls and will continue to do so. The Strategy is currently engaged in a process on how to institutionalize innovative approaches as another tool in achieving challenge goals. The Strategy is committed to addressing all feasible options, including pollution prevention, emission trading schemes, phase-outs and bans or other alternative approaches, which may speed up the pace or increase the level of reductions, taking into account cost effectiveness.

It is recognized that no one single tool will result in the virtual elimination of PBT's. The Strategy will continue to utilize all tools and techniques available to achieve its Challenges

Recommendation #3: The Strategy actively publicizes the persistent toxic substance issue.

Publicizing the persistent toxic substance issue is of paramount importance to the Strategy. The Strategy's primary publication is the GLBTS Annual Progress Report and through workgroup information updates and fact sheets. In addition, many programs already in place on both sides of the border are also actively publicizing the persistent toxic substance issue. Some of these programs include the Great Lakes Action Plan, (including actions being undertaken by the LaMPs and RAPs), and progress reporting under the Canada-Ontario Agreement, and through the implementation of the Canada Wide Standards on the Canadian side; the Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics Initiative, Great Lakes Strategy, Pollution Prevention Roundtable on the U.S. side.

Recommendation #4: The Strategy actively promote broader awareness, engagement, and participation of the Great Lakes community.

As the Strategy works through the implementation phase it will more actively promote itself to the Great Lakes community and seek additional engagement and participation. We believe the Strategy has to become more proactive when communicating reduction achievements during its implementation phase. The Strategy is currently exploring how best to utilize the Strategy's existing linkages with ENGO's, industry and trade associations, and pollution prevention organizations such as the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention and how to develop and exploit new linkages within existing Great Lakes programs such as the LaMPs and RAPs. In addition, Environment Canada and the Great Lakes National Program office recently announced its development of the Binational.net which will be the future host of both U.S. and Canadian GLBTS activities.

Recommendation #5: The Strategy develop sector-based initiatives that deal with more than one contaminate at a time.

From the earliest stages of the GLBTS, it was recognized that a sectoral approach might be an effective and efficient way of achieving reductions for multiple strategy substances. However, it was also recognized that information to be gathered in the first three steps of the analytical process would be crucial to selecting appropriate sectors and formulating an effective multi-substance sectoral approach. With the completion of the substance-specific Step 3 reports in the past year, assessment of cross-substance sector activities was possible and has begun. At its May 18, 2001 meeting, the Integration Workgroup established an interim subgroup to explore and develop options for a sectoral approach to achieve reductions in multiple strategy substances. Representatives from industry and environmental groups volunteered to participate as members of the sector subgroup, led by Environment Canada and the Great Lakes National Program Office.

While the substance-specific workgroups have been engaging sectors on a substance-by-substance basis since the inception of the Strategy, it is anticipated that this new pilot sector approach will look at possible synergies through the engagement of other government programs and initiatives such as LaMPs. It is hoped that interest from a sector may kindle a desire to look for opportunities that go beyond compliance and will have a positive effect on the sector's bottom line. The sector pilot approach meets the original intent of the Strategy and is more likely to result in an impact on suppliers and other related sectors.

From the government's perspective, a multi-substance approach may be more comprehensive and efficient with respect to the allocation of limited monetary and human resources. A sector approach also promotes learning and information technology transfer across a sector, may allow for additional flexibility when implementing actions, and may result in leveraging with other multi-substance efforts for achieving reductions that one couldn't achieve with the independent GLBTS single chemical effort. This approach may also provide an opportunity to focus in on the applicability of other innovative approaches to toxic reductions that may not have been evident in the Step 3 reports.

We recognize that increased coordination with other Great Lakes groups will be imperative to the success of our future efforts. The more we can work with state and provincial governments, Lakewide management teams, and grassroots organizations, the more progress we will all make towards virtual elimination of persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic substances from the Great Lakes Basin. Therefore, the sector approach will only be pursued if after analyses, we are convinced that it will add value to our efforts to achieve the goals of the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy.

Recommendation #6: The Strategy actively address the destruction of stockpiled and stored persistent toxics substances.

The Strategy has been attuned to this issue for the past few years. Further, Environment Canada commissioned a technical assessment for elemental mercury retirement options. The study has been completed and the results of the report will be tabled and discussed at the November 14 ^th , 2001 Mercury Workgroup meeting in Chicago.

Similar assessments for the destruction of stockpiled and stored persistent toxic substance for those Level 1 substances, that have not already been addressed through legislation or do not have retirement programs, is a worth while exercise.

Recommendation #7: The Strategy clarify its relationship to RAPs and LaMPs.

The Strategy has recognized that a closer liaison between itself and the LaMPs would benefit the delivery against reduction targets in both programs. To this end the Strategy is hosting a workshop for all of the LaMP and GLBTS co-chairs and a number of LaMP critical pollutant sub-committee members representative of all the Great Lakes on both sides of the border on November 16 ^th , 2001 in Chicago, Illinois. It is hoped that this will be the first of many LaMP/GLBTS meetings searching for program delivery synergies.

Recommendation #8: The Strategy clarify its linkages to, and coordination with other contaminant reduction and elimination initiatives.

In the past, the Strategy has maintained linkages to, and coordination with, other contaminant reduction and elimination initiatives, both national and international, in the following ways:

• Through interchange of presentations at meetings. For example, representatives from the Commission for Environmental Cooperation in North America, UNEP POPs negotiations, U.S. national PBT Initiative; Canada Wide Standards (CWS) program and Strategic Option Process (SOP), as well as the IJC, have all made presentations at, and participated in, GLBTS meetings. Likewise, GLBTS representatives have made many presentations on the Strategy and opportunities for partnerships throughout North America.

• Involvement of GLBTS personnel on other key initiatives. Workgroup leaders and other staff intimately involved with implementation of the GLBTS have volunteered and become key participants in other important initiatives. U.S. workgroup leaders have served as members, and in some cases as chairpersons, of workgroups under the U.S. National PBT Strategy to develop national action plans for Level 1 substances. Likewise, Canadian workgroup leaders have been intimately involved in CWS and SOP initiatives.

• Where possible, GLBTS representatives have lobbied to have GLBTS goals included or referenced in other initiatives. For example, the US PBT Strategy incorporates the goals of the GLBTS directly, and builds upon the Strategy challenge goals in its national strategy. Likewise, in Canada the Great Lakes Action Plan and the Canada Ontario Agreement deliver on the reduction commitments found in the Strategy.

• Coordination with national efforts in defining roles and responsibilities for specific reduction activities. The GLBTS has worked closely with both Canadian and US national efforts in coordinating work. The alkyl-lead, pesticides, and dioxin workgroups have all worked closely with national efforts, in some cases taking leadership on certain information-gathering efforts (such as burn barrel information for the dioxin workgroup) and in other cases taking advantage of national leadership (such as on PCP options from Canada's SOP or alkyl-lead reductions in race car fuel from the US national PBT strategy).

Recommendation #9: The Strategy clarify its role in the remediation and clean-up of contaminated sediment, land and soil.

By 1998, the governments determined that there were other existing programs in place, at all levels of government, to deal with the issue of contaminated sediment remediation. With this determination, the governments' direction to the Integration Workgroup and the Substance-specific Workgroups, was to not include contaminated bottom sediments in substance-specific inventories. Further, it was recommended that the GLBTS should track progress being made to clean up contaminated bottom sediment in the Great Lakes basin by both countries. In accepting this recommendation, the GLBTS has become the vehicle to track and compile information for all sediment clean-ups conducted in both the U.S. and Canada. This tracking is conducted on an annual basis, with final summary figures provided by June of the following year and reported annually in the GLBTS Progress Report. Aside from tracking volume information alone, any chemical specific mass removal information is provided, where available. Actions to reduce the use and release of PBT will help prevent future contamination of the sediment, land and soil. On the U.S. side there are specific programs to address contaminated land and soil (for example CERCLA, RCRA.)

Recommendation #10: The Parties explore potential Strategy contributions to groundwater restoration and protection.

The issue of groundwater restoration and protection is of great concern. The Strategy, however, was not mandated to address this issue directly. We feel that all actions being taken to meet the Strategy challenges are in support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements' overall goal of virtual elimination and therefore contributes to groundwater protection. The parties in both the U.S. and Canada have specific programs for the protection and restoration of groundwater, such as Underground and Leaking Underground Storage Tank regulations and cleanup programs.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the WQBs Report. If you need additional information or clarification, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Danny Epstein	Gary Gulezian
Regional Director	Director
Environmental Protection Branch Ontario Region	Great Lake National Program Office

APPENDIX C. THOMPSON GOW & ASSOCIATES REPORT
TO THE
PROGRESS REVIEW WORK GROUP

EVALUATION OF THE CANADA-UNITED STATES GREAT LAKES BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY FINAL REPORT Prepared for the Binational Toxics Strategy Progress Review Work Group and International Joint Commission July 12, 2001 Prepared by Thompson Gow & Associates

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in Appendix B are those of Thompson Gow & Associates and not necessarily those of the International Joint Commission.

I. Background

II. Evaluation of the Strategy by Thompson Gow & Associates

III. Findings / Observations and Recommendations

    1.    What the BTS Is and What It Should Be

    2.    Participation in the Strategy

    3.    Progress Toward Meeting Challenges

    4.    BTS Drives / Assists other Toxics Reduction Initiatives

    5.    The Workgroups

    6.    The Four-Step Process

    7.    Voluntary Nature of the Strategy

    8.    Government Support for the Binational Toxics Strategy

    9.    The Need to Take Action

    10.    Poor Information Management and Availability

    11.    Poor Reporting in BTS Progress Reports

    12.    Substance-Specific Findings

IV. Consolidated Recommendations

I. Background

II. Methodology

III. Findings / Observations

    1.    Categorizing Workgroup Activity

    2.    Gathering Information

    3.    Information Management and Availability

    4.    Progress Reports

    5.    Progress Toward Meeting Challenges

    6.    The Four-Step Process

    7.    Pathways and Sources

I. BTS Challenges

II. Progress Toward Meeting Targets

III. Sources and Pathways of Level I Substances

IV. Level I Substances

    1.    Benzo(a)pyrene

    2.    Hexachlorobenzene

    3.    Octachlorostyrene

    4.    Alkyl-lead

    5.    Level I Pesticides

    6.    Mercury

    7.    Polychlorinated Biphenyls

    8.    Dioxins / Furans

I. Methodology

II. Findings / Observations

    1.    What the BTS Is and What It Should Be

    2.    Participation / Involvement in BTS

    3.    BTS Drives / Assists other Toxics Reduction Initiatives

    4.    BTS Drives Inventory and Research Initiatives

    5.    Voluntary Nature of the Strategy

    6.    Government Support for the Binational Toxics Strategy

    7.    Pollution Prevention

    8.    The Need to Take Action

Appendix A.    U.S. National Mercury Quantities

Appendix B.    Bibliography

Appendix C.    Source Categories

Appendix D.    Acronyms

Part I

Consolidated Report

I.    Background

The Canada-United States Strategy for the Virtual Elimination of Persistent Toxic Substances in the Great Lakes, or Binational Toxics Strategy (BTS), was signed by the federal governments of Canada and the United States on April 7, 1997. The purpose of the Strategy is "to set forth a collaborative process by which Environment Canada (EC) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), in consultation with [partners], ⁽¹⁾ will work in cooperation with their public and private partners toward the goal of virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances ... from the Great Lakes Basin." The virtual elimination of Strategy substances, particularly those which bioaccumulate, focuses on releases resulting from human activity. Moreover, the virtual elimination of these substances will protect and ensure the health and integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem. An underlying tenet of the Strategy is that governments cannot by their individual actions alone achieve the goal of virtual elimination and that all sectors of society are challenged to participate and cooperate to ensure success. The goal of virtual elimination is to be achieved through a variety of programs and actions, primarily through pollution prevention. Both regulatory and non-regulatory programs are to be considered in reaching the goal of the virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances.

Recognizing the long-term nature of virtual elimination, the Strategy provides a framework to achieve specific actions from 1997 to 2006. These actions and goals represent milestones along the path to virtual elimination. Seven substance-specific workgroups ⁽²⁾ were formed under the BTS, each of which brings together stakeholders to seek voluntary reduction efforts toward virtual elimination. These substance-specific workgroups are focused on "Level I" substances, the primary focus around which the governments will concentrate and lead actions and efforts:

• Mercury

• Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

• Dioxins / Furans

• Benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P)

• Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)

• Octachlorostyrene (OCS)

• Pesticides (aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT (plus metabolites DDE and DDD), mirex, and toxaphene)

• Alkyl-lead

EC and U.S. EPA, in cooperation with their partners agreed to work toward meeting the Strategy's challenges as specific milestones on the path toward virtual elimination. These milestones are to be achieved by implementing voluntary efforts and through regulatory actions under environmental laws in both countries to achieve reductions of Level I substances. Baselines for the milestones were set by each country, using the best available data.

II.    Evaluation of the Strategy by Thompson Gow & Associates

In early 2001, the International Joint Commission (IJC) contracted Thompson Gow & Associates (TGA) to evaluate the progress made under the Canada - United States Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy and the contribution of the Strategy toward achievement of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement's virtual elimination goal. TGA's consulting mandate is to review:

    (1)    The Strategy's purpose - "to set forth a collaborative process."

    (2)    The Strategy's four steps:

• Information gathering;

• Analysis of current regulations, initiatives and programs which manage or control substances;

• Identification of cost-effective options to achieve further reductions; and

• Implementation of actions to work toward the goal of virtual elimination.

    (3)    The Strategy's specific challenges.

The evaluation of the Strategy consisted of both quantitative and qualitative analysis. First, TGA conducted a review of a wide range of documents and reports to determine the estimated quantities of contaminants currently in the Great Lakes and the various pathways (water, air, sediment, etc.) of new contaminant loadings to the lakes. This "context document" (Part II -- Quantitative Report) also summarizes the sources / sectors from which these contaminants are released, both within and outside the Great Lakes basin. It organizes results that these various reports have provided and is meant to provide a summary of the strengths and gaps in quantitative information on Level I substances. This quantitative analysis was undertaken to determine whether there was sufficient information available for evaluating progress in achieving the reduction targets for each level I substance.

Second, Thompson Gow conducted in-depth interviews with 25 strategically chosen individuals who are involved in efforts related to the Binational Toxics Strategy (Part III -- Qualitative Report). These interviews were undertaken because it was recognized that evaluating the progress in meeting numerical targets was only one criterion for determining the relative success of the Strategy and that other process-related criteria were also important. Part III also provides in-depth findings and observations about the Strategy.

It is important to note that all information provided in this report is based on either the information provided by interviewees or on the document review. Many of the interviewees provided examples of initiatives undertaken for the reduction of the use or release of mercury, which indicates that there is a higher level of awareness of the work that has been done by the mercury workgroup. Interviewees offered fewer examples of initiatives undertaken for other Level I substances.

The evaluation and report only addresses Level I substances since these substances are considered a priority under the Binational Toxics Strategy. The Strategy developed targeted challenges for these substances and most of the work that has been undertaken has been around Level I substances.

Appendix C is a matrix of sources / sectors and level I substances, which shows where there may be opportunities for multi-pollutant initiatives. A bibliography of documents reviewed is presented in Appendix B.

In TGA's considered view, on balance, the Binational Toxics Strategy has been successful in fulfilling its purpose "to set forth a collaborative process" and has engaged many stakeholders and partners in participating in activities to achieve the Strategy's goal to meet the challenges to reduce Level I substances. Also, the Strategy has been successful in maintaining focus on Level I substances, which has helped to focus industry and government on a manageable group of priority substances.

Many of the reductions made in releases of Level I substances cannot be attributed to the Strategy unequivocally because there are a myriad of interconnected toxic reduction programs that have been developed over the last twenty years and new ones continue to be developed and implemented. It is clear that many toxic reduction initiatives have been developed as a result of the Strategy. However, it is not clear what quantities of toxics have been reduced as a result of these Strategy-driven initiatives.

There are a number of areas where the Strategy can build on its strengths and improve on its weaknesses so that accelerated progress will be made in the remaining years of its mandate (until 2006).

Part I provides consolidated observations, with corresponding recommendations, from Parts II and III. Parts II and III of the report provide a myriad of in-depth, detailed findings from our document review and interviews with Strategy participants.

III.    Findings / Observations and Recommendations

1.    What the BTS Is and What It Should Be

It is important to note that as our evaluation of the Strategy progressed, TGA observed that, depending on who we spoke to, there were different views on what the BTS is and what the Strategy should be. Furthermore, these different underlying assumptions about the Strategy tempered the perception of the Strategy's success or failure. For example, if people defined the BTS as "action-oriented," then they tended to perceive that little or no progress had been made. However, if people defined the Strategy as a "process," then they were more likely to say it was making good progress in meeting its goals.

Recommendation 1: The Strategy participants have spent most of their time and effort gathering information and assessing options to further reduce releases of Level I substances. It is important for the Strategy to shift toward taking greater action now that the information has been gathered. The workgroups should engage stakeholders and partners in the development and implementation of initiatives, many of which were identified as options in the Step 3 reports.

2.    Participation in the Strategy

The Strategy appears to have fulfilled its purpose "to set forth a collaborative process." The main strength of the BTS, according to interviewees, is the information sharing and collaboration among various stakeholders that occurs, the latter of which was said to be a unique aspect of the Strategy when compared to other Great Lakes fora.

One major strength of the Strategy is the focus and direction that the Strategy provides to toxic reduction initiatives undertaken by industry and by state / provincial and federal governments. Interviewees argued that, without the Strategy, there would be various, unrelated efforts on different substances, without any coordinated or cohesive effort. Moreover, some argued that without the Strategy, substances that are banned or heavily regulated, such as PCBs and Level I pesticides, may have "dropped off the radar screen" in terms of finding ways to further reduce potential releases.

The BTS also appears to validate other initiatives to reduce PBTs, particularly for state / Ontario government organizations. For example, a state agency can use the Strategy (an international agreement) as additional justification to push / engage industry to take further action to reduce toxics or even as further justification to strengthen emissions limits or other standards. It appears that the principles of the BTS drive state / provincial toxic reduction and pollution prevention programs.

Recommendation 2: The workgroups need to build on the example / strength of the mercury workgroup in engaging the states / provinces in discussions, which have led states / provinces to develop initiatives to reduce Level I substances through the replication of initiatives begun in other jurisdictions.

There are several gaps in stakeholder participation in the BTS. Interviewees suggested that greater involvement is needed by state / Ontario government officials as well as a broader range of industry sectors, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and companies that use mercury in their products. We were also told that more involvement by environmental organizations, particularly in the substance-specific workgroups, is also needed. Tribal and First Nations were also mentioned as not being currently involved in the BTS effort.

Recommendation 3: The Strategy achieved a great deal of success through collaboration of partners to gather information and understanding on Level I substances and their sources. Strategy participants should build on these successful partnerships and further engage federal, state / provincial, and local government agencies and departments; smaller companies; users of mercury; and other organizations.

Recommendation 4: The Integration Group and / or workgroups should develop strategies for engaging smaller companies in efforts to reduce the release of Level I substances. One option might be to engage smaller companies through supply-chain management initiatives led by larger companies to which they supply services and goods. Another option might be to develop supplier outreach programs, in partnership with large companies and state / provincial and municipal governments.

Recommendation 5: The public was identified as a group that needs to be engaged to understand their role in producing toxic substances. In particular, the HCB / B(a)P and dioxin / furan workgroups should engage the public, through education campaigns and other initiatives, to educate them about their role in potentially releasing Level I substances. Another option might be to develop a communications strategy to improve public awareness, which could be delivered through partnerships with local municipal and environmental organizations.

Recommendation 6: Environmental organizations and state / provincial governments should be involved in the substance-specific workgroups. This participation would allow environmental organizations and state / provincial agencies to become aware of, develop, and / or participate in pilot projects to reduce Strategy substances. Moreover, environmental groups could utilize their grass-roots linkages to mobilize local efforts as well as educational campaigns. One option would be for the Parties to provide grant money for travel so that a representative from each Great Lake state / Ontario can attend one substance-specific meeting per year. Environmental organizations should also have the opportunity to apply for grant money to travel to substance-specific workgroups. Another option would be for the Integration Group and workgroups to consider having rotating meetings in the Great Lakes states / Ontario so that less travel is incurred by organizations not based near Chicago, Detroit, or Toronto.

Recommendation 7: Environmental organizations and states / provinces are keen to develop initiatives and pilot projects that demonstrate different ways of reducing Level I releases into the environment. Their ideas and suggestions on the development of new initiatives to reduce toxic releases and their suggestions on how to improve or expand projects would be very useful. The Parties should encourage these organizations to engage sources of Level I releases and to develop initiatives that support the goals of the Strategy. One option might be for the Parties to provide grants to fund these types of initiatives. In return, the environmental organizations and state / provincial governments would document the progress made, the hurdles encountered and how they were overcome, the lessons learned, etc., which would be shared with the members of the workgroups.

Recommendation 8: The Strategy participants should enter into discussions with Tribal and First Nations organizations to discuss ways in which they could participate in Strategy goals. One option might be to work in partnership with them to develop initiatives that could be delivered by the tribal / First Nations groups directly.

It appears that the Strategy is unevenly linked or coordinated to other efforts to reduce toxics in the Great Lakes basin. For example, the Strategy appears to be linked to the Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and Lake Ontario (U.S. side) Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs). However, there is disagreement among participants on the linkages between the Strategy and the LaMPs in general. Similarly, there is disagreement on how well the Strategy is linked to the Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for Great Lakes Areas of Concern. However, most perceived that better coordination between the Strategy and the LaMPs would be desirable.

Recommendation 9: Workgroups should develop ways to share and coordinate efforts to reduce toxic substances with participants in the LaMP and RAP processes.

3.    Progress Toward Meeting Challenges

There appears to have been good progress in meeting the challenge to "assess atmospheric inputs of the Strategy substances to the Great Lakes." All of the substance-specific workgroups have focused on atmospheric emissions in their step reports and have identified atmospheric transport as an area for further study.

The workgroups have all identified the atmosphere as the most significant pathway for Level I substances entering the Great Lakes. Further, the Strategy appears to have impacted toxic reduction efforts at the national, hemispheric, and international levels. For example, U.S. EPA's Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic, or PBT Initiative, is a national cross-office, multi-media initiative that has a very strong link to the Binational Toxics Strategy. An example of a hemispheric initiative impacted by the Strategy is the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's North American Regional Action Plans (NARAP), which also target Level I substances such as mercury, DDT, and PCBs. At the international level, the Strategy appears to have assisted the U.S. and Canadian stance on the United Nations Environmental Programme's Persistent Organic Pollutants, or POPs, Protocol.

Recommendation 10: All of the substance-specific workgroups have identified the atmosphere as the most significant pathway for Level I substance loadings to the Great Lakes. Building on this strong base, the Parties should continue in their efforts to work within hemispheric and international frameworks to push for the global reduction of Level I emissions.

There appears to have been little work undertaken to meet the challenge of completing or being well advanced in remediating priority sites with contaminated bottom sediments in the Great Lakes. None of the workgroup step reports mention remediation issues. Moreover, some of the interviewees said that it was either inappropriate for the Strategy to consider contaminated sediments or that contaminated sediments had not been addressed (and should be). There appears to be a conflict over the importance and / or the very validity of this challenge.

Recommendation 11: Contaminated sediment leads to the uptake of some Level I substances - in particular, mercury, PCBs, and pesticides -- by fish, wildlife and, ultimately, humans. Since the Parties made a commitment under the Strategy to meet the challenge to remediate priority sites with contaminated bottom sediments, the Strategy participants need to address this challenge. The Parties should appoint a task group, or ask the Integration Group, to discuss practical ways that the Strategy could assist in meeting this challenge. This may involve coordinating efforts with other federal departments that are responsible for cleaning up contaminated sites or with Remedial Action Plans.

Recommendation 12: Additional effort is required to clean up contaminated sites, which is also a dominant exposure pathway for fish, wildlife, and humans. In the future, the Parties should make the challenge for contaminated sediment clearer, with specific time frames and reduction targets, so that a clear goal and direction is provided to Strategy participants. The Parties may also wish to consider the appropriate venue for remediation actions to occur, whether it is the BTS, the RAPs, or the directly responsible federal organizations.

Most interviewees agreed that pollution prevention initiatives were the focus of discussions in workgroups, with only a couple of people disagreeing. A few argued that pollution prevention staff in government agencies were involved in Strategy efforts. One concern expressed is the additional effort needed to phase out the use of Level I substances in products, particularly mercury.

Recommendation 13: The workgroups should continue to focus on pollution prevention opportunities for reducing the release of Level I substances. Where Level I substances are still being used, additional effort is needed to engage companies to use alternative, non-Level I substances in their products.

Canadian Challenges

Canada has not met the challenge targets for B(a)P, HCB, mercury, dioxins / furans and OCS. Canada has made good progress in meeting its 90 percent challenge to reduce mercury emissions, achieving a 77.5 percent reduction between 1988 to 2000. This is also the case for dioxins / furans, where Canada has reduced dioxins / furans by 79.6 percent between 1988 and 2000 (90 percent target). It is unknown whether Canada has met its PCB reduction challenge, considering the baseline information for PCBs in 1988 is unknown (see "Substance-Specific Findings," below).

United States

The U.S. has made some initial progress in meeting its 50 percent reduction challenge in the use of mercury, achieving an 18.6 percent decrease in use between 1995 and 1999. The U.S. has also made some progress in meeting its challenge to reduce U.S. mercury emissions by 50 percent, achieving a 25 percent reduction between 1990 and 1994. The U.S. appears to have made excellent progress toward meeting its 90 percent reduction target for PCBs; it has achieved a nearly 90 percent reduction in the number of PCB transformers between 1994 and 1998. Reduction targets were not specified for B(a)P or HCB in the U.S. For B(a)P, it is not known what reductions have been achieved. According to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), there has been a 71 percent reduction in HCB releases between 1990 and 1997, which indicates good progress (see "Substance-Specific Findings," below).

Baseline Data

The baseline data are unknown or incomplete for dioxins / furans and octachlorostyrene in the U.S. and for PCBs in Canada. The lack of estimated quantities for the base years of these Level I substances makes it difficult to evaluate the progress that has been made toward meeting the Strategy's challenges. TGA cannot confirm that the challenges for these Level I substances have been met (see "Poor Information Management and Availability," below).

Canada and the U.S. have met the challenges for alkyl-lead and Level I pesticides; both countries have reported reductions in the emissions of alkyl-lead beyond those stated in their respective challenges. Also, both countries have confirmed that level I pesticides are no longer manufactured or used in their respective countries.

4.    BTS Drives / Assists other Toxics Reduction Initiatives

Although it is not clear what reduction results the BTS can take credit for, the assumption that a cause-effect relationship can be made for an individual toxic reduction initiative or Strategy is flawed. Many of the regulations, pollution prevention initiatives, voluntary efforts, and monitoring programs that began in the 1980s and 1990s target persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic substances and continue to play an important role in reducing ambient levels of these pollutants in the Great Lakes, in biota, and in sediment. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the indirect influence that the BTS has on existing initiatives, and the development of new ones, has been largely unrecognized and undervalued.

There are many examples of initiatives that are either directly or indirectly assisted by the Strategy, e.g. the work done on backyard burn barrels; the mercury pollution prevention initiative with three Indiana steel mills; the work done with hospitals to reduce mercury-containing hospital equipment / instruments; and efforts to deal with mercury-containing switches in automobiles, among others. Most of the examples relate to mercury reduction efforts.

The Strategy has played an important role, either directly or indirectly, in impacting or focusing state / provincial initiatives in reducing Level I substances, particularly mercury, although this is less true for Ontario. The Strategy helps the state / provincial agency engage industry; indirectly drives programs; helps keep a focus on mercury issues; and helps the state / province go further in its efforts to reduce mercury.

Information sharing is a major strength of the Strategy. The substance-specific workgroups have generated excellent opportunities to share information on, and become aware of, toxic reduction projects that could be replicated in other jurisdictions. There are many examples of projects that had begun in one state / province and had been, or are going to be, replicated in another. In addition, the networking that occurs at meetings allows participants to get to know who is working on a particular project, so that state / provincial government officials know who to call when they want guidance and information for replicating the project.

There are several examples of "pilot projects" that have been replicated in another jurisdiction or expanded to a larger region, including the mercury pollution prevention agreement involving three Indiana steel mills; the wood burning stove change-out program; the health care without harm initiative; the mercury thermometer exchange program; the clean car campaign; and the backyard burn barrel initiative. Most examples are projects to reduce mercury, although projects related to incineration (backyard burn barrel and wood burning stoves) target more than one substance (e.g. dioxins / furans, hexachlorobenzene, and benzo(a)pyrene).

Other examples of initiatives linked to the BTS include the Canada Ontario Agreement, which focused on the same substances and had almost identical targets and reduction dates. In addition, the changes under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) seem to be linked to the Strategy; it will require lower reporting thresholds under the TRI for certain persistent bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, which have been added to the TRI list of toxic chemicals.

The cause-effect relationship between the Strategy and the reductions of PBTs in the basin is difficult to quantify. There are various initiatives to reduce releases of toxics and it is nearly impossible to attribute which reductions are the result of the Strategy as opposed to regulations, manufacturing process changes, voluntary initiatives, or other management programs. In addition, there is a great deal of disagreement among participants as to whether or not toxic reduction initiatives are related to the Strategy. Nonetheless, there appear to be more people that believe the BTS influences initiatives, either directly or indirectly, than those who do not.

Recommendation 14: As Level I substances, such as pesticides, PCBs, and mercury, are collected or taken out of products, the storage and / or destruction of these substances will need to be considered. Pollution prevention is the main focus for reducing the release of Level I substances, but for substances that have a long history of use - or cannot be destroyed, like mercury - the issue is becoming one of how to safely store or dispose of these highly toxic, bioaccumulative, and persistent substances. The Strategy may be able to provide some leadership in this regard, based on its success in collaborating on research and information sharing. One option may be to set up a task group made up of members of the mercury, PCBs, and pesticides workgroups, among others, to consider this emerging issue.

BTS Drives Inventory and Research Initiatives

The BTS had played a significant role in driving inventory research initiatives (e.g. modeling, research, stack testing, etc.) undertaken by Great Lakes states / Ontario, industry, and federal governments. It appears that, without the Strategy, much of the inventory work done on Level I substances would not have occurred.

Moreover, the inventory work that has come out of the Strategy has provided additional focus to industry and other government organizations and has ensured there is good information on the sources of releases and pathways of the Strategy substances. Further, the 4-step process of the BTS is seen as a considerable strength because it focuses on finding the information about the sources and pathways of the substance first, then identifying the "owner" of the problem and, finally, prompting the owner to take action in solving the problem.

5.    The Workgroups