I

Great Lakes Binational

Toxics Strategy

CANADA -- UNITED STATES

STRATEGY FOR THE VIRTUAL

ELIMINATION OF PERSISTENT TOXIC

SUBSTANCES IN THE GREAT LAKES
II

Lakeshore Sunset

Lake Superior Dog Harbour, Ontario

Photo by Robert F. Beltran
III

Purpose.................................................................................................................................................... 1

Environmental Context......................................................................................................................... 1

Approach to Virtual Elimination ......................................................................................................... 2

Analytical Framework .......................................................................................................................... 3

Principles................................................................................................................................................. 4

Scope and Effect ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Challenges............................................................................................................................................... 5

Priority Activities ................................................................................................................................... 7

Joint Progress Measurement and Reporting Activities .................................................................... 7

Significant Issues.................................................................................................................................... 7

APPENDIX I ......................................................................................................................................... A-1

Level I Substances .................................................................................................................. A-1

Level II Substances ................................................................................................................. A-1

How Strategy Substances were Selected ............................................................................ A-1

Future Changes in the Chemical Listing Process .............................................................. A-2

Technical Support Document Attachment 1

Actions Under the Binational Strategy ............................................................................... A-2

Glossary ................................................................................................................................... A-8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
IV

Waterfall in Cascade Park-Where Two Branches of the Black River Join

Elyria, Ohio

Photo by the Ohio Lake Erie Office
1

PURPOSE PURPOSE

In keeping with the objective of the Revised Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by Protocol

signed November 18, 1987 (1987 GLWQA) to restore and

protect the Great Lakes, the purpose of this binational

strategy (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 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. In cases where

this Strategy addresses a naturally-occurring substance,

it is the anthropogenic sources of pollution that, when

warranted, will be targeted for reduction through a lifecycle management approach so as to achieve naturallyoccurring levels. An underlying tenet of this Strategy is

that the 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 goal of virtual elimination will be achieved

through a variety of programs and actions, but the

primary emphasis of this Strategy will be on pollution

prevention. This Strategy reaffirms the two countries'

commitment to the sound management of chemicals, as

stated in Agenda 21: A Global Action Plan for the 21st

Century and adopted at the 1992 United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development. The

Strategy will also be guided by the principles articulated

by the International Joint Commission's (IJC) Virtual

Elimination Task Force (VETF) in the Seventh Biennial

Report on Great Lakes Quality. This Strategy has been

developed under the auspices of the Binational Executive

Committee (BEC), which is charged with coordinating the

implementation of the binational aspects of the 1987

GLWQA. The BEC is co-chaired by EC and USEPA, and

includes members of the Great Lakes states, the Province

of Ontario, and other federal departments and agencies

in Canada and the United States (U.S.).

ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL

CONTEXT CONTEXT

The Great Lakes are an extraordinary natural endowment,

holding 18 percent of the world's supply of surface fresh

water. They are home to 33 million people, 47 percent of

whom draw their drinking water from the Lakes. The

Great Lakes are also vital to many North American fish

and wildlife species. Their wealth of natural resources

has long made the region a heartland of economic

strength.

During the 1970s, it became apparent that pollution

caused by persistent toxic substances was harming Great

Lakes species and posing risks to human and wildlife

consumers of fish. Accordingly, under the Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement of 1978, the U.S. and Canada

pledged to seek the virtual elimination of the discharge

of persistent toxic substances to the Great Lakes.

The risks to human, fish and wildlife health came to the

fore again during the 1980s when public attention became

focused on the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. These

concerns led to the negotiation and signing, separate from

the 1987 GLWQA, of the four-party Niagara River

Declaration of Intent (DOI) in 1987, and the development

of the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, which has

been incorporated into the Lake Ontario Lakewide

Management Plan (LaMP) program.

The 1987 GLWQA established a process, set of

commitments, and general principles for developing and

implementing Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) for

geographic Areas of Concern (AOCs) and LaMPs.

In 1991, in response to a recommendation from the IJC,

the governments of Canada, the U.S., Michigan,

Minnesota, Ontario and Wisconsin developed the

Binational Program to Restore and Protect the Lake

Superior Basin (Binational Program). The purpose of the

Binational Program was to protect the high quality waters

of the Lake Superior Basin, to restore degraded areas

therein, and to achieve zero discharge of designated

persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances from

point sources in the Basin.

In 1994, the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the

Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA) was established to

ensure implementation of the requirements of the 1987

GLWQA. In 1995, in the U.S., the final Water Quality

Guidance for the Great Lakes System (GLI) was

published, establishing a process for developing

consistent water quality standards across the Great Lakes

system. The Strategy builds on and complements all of

these efforts.
2

Significant successes in reducing persistent toxic

substances in the Great Lakes include cleanup of

contaminated sediment sites at Great Lakes harbors,

reduced levels of PCBs, dioxins and DDT, and improved

sport fisheries. Researchers have also observed an increase

in the number of certain wildlife species (e.g., eagles and

cormorants).

Even with the important accomplishments in toxics

reduction achieved by the RAPs, the LaMPs, the Niagara

River DOI and the Binational Program over the past

decade, and the actions taken by both countries to ban,

cancel, and restrict the use of a number of persistent toxic

substances, these substances continue to be present in the

Great Lakes ecosystem. For example, contaminated

bottom sediments pollute certain harbors, impeding

navigational dredging and the economic potential for use

of these waters. Unacceptable levels of PCBs, methyl

mercury, and toxaphene require the continued issuance

of fish consumption advisories, suppressing the economic

potential of the region's fisheries industries and presenting

a continued human health risk. More recently, there has

been growing public concern about, and active

government investigation into, toxic pollutants that may

produce non-cancerous health effects in wildlife and in

humans, including reproductive and hormonal disruption

and learning disabilities.

The continuing presence of these persistent toxic

substances is the result of atmospheric deposition, release

from contaminated bottom sediments, releases from

various industrial processes, releases from non-point

sources, and continuous cycling of naturally-occurring

and anthropogenic substances within the Great Lakes

themselves. In some cases, there may also be illegal or

accidental discharge of stored substances for which

production and use has previously been cancelled or

banned. All of these factors highlight the need for more

to be done.

This Strategy acknowledges and builds on the existing

Canadian and U.S. regulatory programs which address

the targeted substances. In Canada, these include the

programs under the Canadian Environmental Protection

Act, the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental

Assessment Act, the Pest Control Products Act, the

Ontario Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water

Resources Act, the Ontario Environmental Assessment

Act, and an array of other federal and provincial acts

which bear on protection of the Great Lakes Basin

Ecosystem from the polluting effects of these substances.

In the U.S., these include the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability

Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the

Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances

Control Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act, and other regulatory programs. Both

countries acknowledge that more needs to be done.

The "unfinished business" of virtually eliminating

persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin

remains a significant challenge. To contribute to the

resolution of this problem, more strategic and coordinated

interventions are required at various geographic scales,

from the local watershed/AOC to the lakewide, basinwide, national, and international arenas. Movement of

persistent toxic substances does not respect jurisdictional

or geographic borders. In particular, the inter-basin

transfer of persistent toxic substances from one lake to

another and the short- and long-range movement and

deposition of these substances from the air have

compelled EC and USEPA to develop this coordinated

binational Strategy. The Strategy is intended to encourage

ongoing programs or emerging initiatives to better

address toxic releases; to provide a context of basin-wide

goals for localized actions; and to provide "out of basin"

support to Great Lakes Basin programs such as LaMPs

and RAPs.

Approach to V oach to Virtual

Elimination Elimination

In Article II(a) of the 1987 GLWQA, the two countries

agreed that "...the discharge of any and all persistent toxic

substances be virtually eliminated" and agreed to develop

programs and measures to implement the GLWQA,

including "measures for the control of inputs of persistent

toxic substances including control programs for their

production, use, distribution, and disposal..." (GLWQA,

Article VI (k)). To accomplish this objective, the IJC in

1990 urged the Parties to develop and implement "a

comprehensive, binational program to lessen the uses of,

and exposure to persistent toxic chemicals found in the

Great Lakes environment." In their response to the IJC's

Seventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality,

both the U.S. and Canada reaffirmed their commitment

to work on such a binational Strategy, to promote

implementation of commitments in the 1987 GLWQA.

Since that time, both countries have undertaken their own

virtual elimination efforts, Canada through its Toxic

Substances Management Policy (TSMP), and the U.S.

through its Virtual Elimination Pilot Project.

In February 1995, Prime Minister Chrétien and President

Clinton confirmed the commitment by the U.S. and

Canada to work together to develop a binational strategy

to address the most persistent toxic substances in the Great

Lakes environment. The two countries prepared this

Strategy, building on past and ongoing virtual elimination

efforts in the Basin, including the extensive work by the

IJC in its framework outlined in the VETF report. The

Strategy also incorporates suggestions, ideas and concepts

embodied in the 6th and 7th IJC Biennial Reports.

This Strategy will follow the framework outlined in

Agenda 21: A Global Action Plan for the 21st Century and
3

adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development. In this framework, the

U.S. and Canada (and other nations) committed, where

appropriate to:

undertake concerted activities to reduce risks for

toxic chemicals, taking into account the entire lifecycle of the chemicals. These activities could

encompass both regulatory and non-regulatory

measures, such as promotion of the use of cleaner

products and technologies; emission inventories;

product labeling; use limitations; economic

incentives; and the phasing out or banning of toxic

chemicals that pose an unreasonable and

otherwise unmanageable risk to human health

and the environment, including those that are

toxic, persistent and bioaccumulative and whose

use cannot be adequately controlled;

and adopt policies and regulatory and nonregulatory measures to identify, and minimize

exposure to, toxic chemicals by replacing them

with less toxic substitutes and ultimately phasing

out the chemicals that pose unreasonable and

otherwise unmanageable risk to human health

and the environment and those that are toxic,

persistent and bioaccumulative and whose use

cannot be adequately controlled.

This concept of Virtual Elimination, as acknowledged by

the IJC and for purposes of this Strategy, also recognizes

that it may not be possible to achieve total elimination of

all persistent toxic substances -- some may be produced

by, or as a result of natural processes and so may persist

at background or "natural" levels. In addition, total or

complete elimination may not be possible for

technological or economic reasons. In cases where the

Strategy addresses a naturally-occurring substance, it is

the anthropogenic sources of pollution of that particular

substance which, when warranted, will be targeted for

reduction through a life-cycle management approach so

as to achieve naturally-occurring levels. To accomplish

the objective of restoring and maintaining the integrity

of the Great Lakes, the Strategy seeks to reduce and

virtually eliminate the input of persistent toxic substances

to the Great Lakes1

. Virtual elimination will be sought

within the most expedient time frame through the most

appropriate, common sense, practical and cost-effective

blend of voluntary, regulatory or incentive-based actions.

All feasible options will be considered, including

pollution prevention, phase-outs and bans2.

Actions identified in this Strategy will be complemented

by other existing or proposed regulatory and nonregulatory initiatives. In addition, it is anticipated that

actions and challenges identified in this document will

evolve over time as information about opportunities, cost

effectiveness, and benefits becomes available. Virtual

elimination may not be achievable tomorrow, but the

challenges and actions outlined in this Strategy represent

significant milestones on the path toward this goal.

Analytical Framework Analytical Framework

EC and the USEPA, in cooperation with their partners,

will use a four-step process to work toward virtual

elimination.

1. Information gathering

Identify to the extent feasible, the full range of

sources, both point and non-point, within and outside

the Basin which release the selected substances, by

economic sector, and examine which sector(s) may

be contributing to the presence of the substance in

the Basin. Within each source, identify why and how

the substance is used or released, e.g., used as a

product or released as a byproduct. This step may

include examining the entire life cycle of the

substance, from initial decision to use through

eventual disposal. Also, specific characteristics of a

substance such as whether it is naturally occurring,

or whether its release results from human use, will

be considered. Information gaps and uncertainties

as to sources, multi-media loadings and associated

impacts of specific substances will be identified and

actions recommended to address them.

2. Analyze current regulations, initiatives and programs

which manage or control substances

Assess how existing laws, regulations and programs

influence the presence of these substances in the

Basin, and their long-range transport across states,

provinces, regions and international borders. Identify

the gaps in these regulations, programs and

initiatives that offer opportunity for the most

effective and appropriate reductions of these

substances.

3. Identify cost-ef 3. Identify cost-effective options to achieve further

reductions

Identify options that may offer opportunities for new

or modified measures, including emission trading

1

 Hereafter, the terms "substances" or "Strategy substances" shall mean persistent toxic substances resulting from human activity,

particularly those which bioaccumulate, and which are the focus of efforts under this Strategy. For further information on the meaning of

persistent toxic substances, see the Glossary and Appendix I.

2 In the U.S., existing and currently planned regulatory actions will contribute to meeting the goal of virtual elimination; however, this Strategy

is not a regulatory action, nor is it expected, in and of itself, to lead to the promulgation of any rule or regulation. To the extent that regulatory

actions are taken with regard to Strategy substances, they will be governed by the statutes authorizing the actions.
4

schemes, pollution prevention, or other alternative

approaches, which may speed up the pace or increase

the level of reductions, taking into account cost

effectiveness.

4. Implement actions to work toward the goal of virtual d the goal of virtual

elimination

Using cost-effective measures, recommend and

implement actions that work toward the goal of

virtual elimination, consistent with the approach

outlined in this Strategy.

With respect to some substances, EC and USEPA have

already taken one or more of these steps, as discussed

further in Attachment 1.

Principles Principles

This Strategy builds on the framework adopted by Canada

and the U.S. and other countries around the world in

Chapter 19 of Agenda 21 on Environmentally Sound

Management of Toxic Chemicals, and the principles

advanced by the IJC's VETF for a virtual elimination

strategy. Therefore, it is agreed that in implementing this

Strategy, EC and the USEPA, in cooperation with their

partners:

• recognize that the Strategy substances do not respect

international boundaries; they pass between nations via

the atmosphere, in shared waters, and through trade or

transboundary movement of products and wastes.

Therefore, the two nations cannot protect their citizens

solely through bilateral actions. Canada and the U.S. will

work with other nations to share scientific information

and work with them toward international accords to

address these substances, where appropriate. Some

examples of the international efforts with which Canada

and the U.S. will be coordinating include: the development of a global agreement on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), as called for in a recent meeting of the

Governing Council of the United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP); the development of protocols on

POPs and heavy metals under the United Nations

Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention

on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP);

cooperative actions to implement the October 1995

Resolution on the Sound Management of Chemicals

developed by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) under the North American Agreement on

Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC); and other chemicals-related activities under UNEP, the Intergovernmental

Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) and other bodies.

• reaffirm their shared responsibility to work toward the

goal of virtual elimination and to recognize that the two

countries' respective domestic measures to achieve that

goal must respect the institutional, environmental and

socio-economic context of each country. Each country has

discretion to include and act in accordance with its

domestic national policies in meeting the commitments of

this Strategy, recognizing the need for flexibility in

determining how to meet these commitments and the

possibility that some actions and challenges will evolve

over time as information about opportunities, and their

associated costs and benefits becomes available. Canada

and the U.S. are free at all times to take actions and pursue

targets more stringent than those identified in this

Strategy. Each country will build on the efforts of states/

provinces, industries and local communities, both within

and outside the Basin.

• favor "cleaner, cheaper and smarter" ways to reduce the

Strategy substances, focusing on the best opportunities

across a substance's life to reduce its releases. EC and

USEPA believe that pursuing a long-term, phased strategy

through prevention where possible and remediation when

necessary, is a common sense, practical approach to

achieving environmental objectives.

• are committed to an open, interactive, public participation

process, which includes issuing regular progress reports

to the public. While the two federal governments must

lead, they alone cannot achieve the goal of virtual elimination. Other levels of government, industry and society as a

whole must share the responsibility to restore and

maintain the health of the Great Lakes Basin.

• will collaborate in, and support voluntary initiatives by

major use and release sectors and others to reduce and

eventually eliminate the use, generation or release of

Strategy substances. In the case of naturally-occurring

substances, collaborative efforts will consider life-cycle

management approaches to achieve the desired reductions.

Scope and Ef Scope and Ef Scope and Effect

Recognizing that virtual elimination is a long-term

objective, this Strategy provides a framework to achieve

specific actions from 1997 to 2006. These actions and goals

represent milestones along the path to virtual elimination.

This Strategy embraces actions to reduce and virtually

eliminate persistent toxic substances resulting from

human activity, particularly those which bioaccumulate,

that affect or have the potential to affect the Great Lakes

ecosystem, taking into account all relevant factors. In cases

where this Strategy addresses a naturally-occurring

substance, it is the anthropogenic sources of pollution that,

when warranted, will be targeted for reduction through

a life-cycle management approach so as to achieve

naturally-occurring levels. This Strategy reflects the firm

commitment of Canada and the U.S. to better focus and

coordinate existing programs toward the goal of virtual

elimination of Strategy substances, without giving rise to

legal obligations on the governments or on the public.

Nothing in this Strategy affects the legal status of the 1987

GLWQA.

The scope of the Strategy and its associated commitments

and activities will be focused primarily on the Great Lakes

Basin. However, with respect to atmospheric deposition,

consistent with the provisions of Annex 15 of the GLWQA,

the traditional concept of the geographic area which

impacts the Basin will be expanded to recognize the longrange transport of Strategy substances adversely affecting
5

the quality of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

To facilitate the reductions envisaged in the Strategy, EC

and USEPA will work in cooperation with other

responsible jurisdictions on a national and international

basis, to strengthen linkages to all existing toxics reduction

efforts, and to ensure that goals are harmonized and

actions are coordinated to achieve environmental

progress. As part of this task, EC and USEPA will work to

coordinate efforts under the Strategy so that they are

complementary with other international efforts cited

earlier, such as efforts to develop LRTAP Convention

Protocols on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and

heavy metals, the CEC Resolution on the Sound

Management of Chemicals, the UNEP and IFCS

initiatives, and the multilateral negotiations on POPs.

This Strategy includes those actions undertaken jointly

by EC, USEPA and their partners, as well as those actions

undertaken individually through each nation's domestic

programs and processes. Within the context of the

Strategy, EC and USEPA will seek the cooperation of their

partners to address Strategy substances coming from longrange transport outside the Basin that enter the Great

Lakes ecosystem, while supporting and building upon

the ongoing processes in the LaMPs and the RAPs to

reduce "within basin" sources. It is expected that the

LaMPs and RAPs will make important contributions to

the goal of virtual elimination and will provide means to

identify opportunities to achieve "within-basin" load

reductions. The individual LaMPs will be focused on

those chemicals that are of concern in that particular basin,

and those which have the potential to migrate to other

lakes or waterways; the LaMP reduction targets may also

be more stringent than those in the Strategy. Reductions

achieved through within-basin efforts will be very

important to meeting the challenges, and helping to

ensure the success, of this Strategy.

EC and USEPA recognize that many "critical pollutant"

lists exist. For purposes of this Strategy, they have chosen

to focus actions first on those substances that have been

identified for priority action by multiple screening criteria

and processes (see Appendix I). In essence, these are

substances that are present in the water, sediment or

aquatic biota of the Great Lakes system and that are

exerting, singly or in synergistic or additive combination,

a toxic effect on aquatic, animal, or human life.

"Level I" substances as listed in Appendix I represent the

primary focus around which the governments will

concentrate and lead actions and efforts. Since these Level

I substances have been associated with or have the

potential to cause deleterious environmental impacts

because of their presence in the Basin, they represent an

immediate priority and are targeted for virtual elimination

through pollution prevention and other incentive-based

actions that phase out their use, generation or release in a

cost-effective manner within the most expedient timeframe. For anthropogenic sources of naturally-occurring

substances, the Strategy will, when warranted, seek to

reduce such sources so as to achieve naturally-occurring

levels.

The Strategy also includes actions for a second set of

substances ("Level II" substances) -- listed in Appendix I

-- that have been identified by one or both countries as

having the potential to significantly impact the Great

Lakes ecosystem through their use and/or release. Until

and unless these substances are placed on the Level I list,

the governments encourage stakeholders to undertake

pollution prevention activities to reduce levels in the

environment of those substances nominated jointly by

both countries, and to conform with the laws and policies

of each country, including pollution prevention, with

respect to those substances nominated by only one

country.

USEPA and EC intend to consult with stakeholders on

proposed changes to the lists at the biennial meeting of

the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) or

another appropriate forum. Existing processes for

nominating or elevating substances will be used, e.g.,

Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCCs) in the U.S.,

TSMP, and COA in Canada, or LaMP Critical Pollutants.

It is not the intent of the Strategy to initiate a new

nominating process. Existing nominating and chemical

screening processes already include a strong public

participation component.

The two nations will share information regarding the

persistence, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity of

Level II substances. In addition, EC and USEPA in

cooperation with their partners will periodically examine

the substances addressed by the Strategy to determine

whether any Level II substances should be elevated to

the Level I list, whether new substances which present

threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem should be considered

for inclusion on the Level I or II lists, and whether any

other changes should be made. If a substance is identified

as Level I the two countries will set binational virtual

elimination challenges for it. Elevation to Level I or

removal of a substance from Level II will be made with

appropriate opportunity for public review and comment.

Challenges Challenges

EC and USEPA, working in cooperation with their

partners, accept the following challenges as significant

milestones on the path toward virtual elimination. These

milestones will be achieved by implementing voluntary

efforts to achieve reductions of particular Level I

substances and through currently anticipated regulatory

actions under environmental laws in both countries. In

Canada, the baseline used for these milestones will be

1988, in keeping with the Accelerated Reduction and

Elimination of Toxics Program (ARET) baseline and the

1987 GLWQA. For the U.S., the baseline from which
6

reductions will be measured is unique for each substance,

and is identified in Attachment 1; the best available data

will be used, which in most cases is the most recent

baseline.

As new information and data on opportunities, and their

associated costs and benefits become available, EC and

USEPA may revise the milestones, using a public

consultation process involving their partners. In some

cases, the challenges may differ between EC and USEPA

based on different start dates for their respective domestic

toxics reduction programs, different regulatory and

legislative authorities, and different chemical data bases,

baselines and inventories.

EC and USEPA will work with their partners to:

U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: Confirm by 1998 that there is no longer

use or release from sources that enter the Great Lakes

Basin of five bioaccumulative pesticides (chlordane,

aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex, and toxaphene), and of the

industrial byproduct/contaminant octachlorostyrene. If

ongoing, long-range sources of these substances from

outside of the U.S. are confirmed, work within

international frameworks to reduce or phase

out releases of these substances.

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Challenge: Report by 1997, that there is no

longer use, generation or release from Ontario sources

that enter the Great Lakes of five bioaccumulative

pesticides (chlordane, aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex, and

toxaphene), and of the industrial byproduct/contaminant

octachlorostyrene. If ongoing, long-range sources of these

substances from outside of Canada are confirmed, work

within international frameworks to reduce or phase out

releases of these substances.

U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: Confirm by 1998, that there is no longer

use of alkyl-lead in automotive gasoline. Support and

encourage stakeholder efforts to reduce alkyl-lead releases

from other sources.

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Challenge: Seek Canadian Challenge: by 2000, a 90 percent reduction

in use, generation, or release of alkyl-lead consistent with

the 1994 COA.

U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: Seek by 2006, a 90 percent reduction

nationally of high-level PCBs (>500 ppm) used in

electrical equipment. Ensure that all PCBs retired from

use are properly managed and disposed of to prevent

accidental releases within or to the Great Lakes Basin.

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Challenge: Seek Canadian Challenge: by 2000, a 90 percent reduction

of high-level PCBs (>1 percent PCB) that were once, or

are currently, in service and accelerate destruction of

stored high-level PCB wastes which have the potential to

enter the Great Lakes Basin, consistent with the 1994 COA.

U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: Seek by 2006, a 50 percent reduction

nationally in the deliberate use of mercury and a 50

percent reduction in the release of mercury from sources

resulting from human activity. The release challenge will

apply to the aggregate of releases to the air nationwide

and of releases to the water within the Great Lakes Basin.

This target is considered as an interim reduction target

and, in consultation with stakeholders, will be revised if

warranted, following completion of the Mercury Study

Report to Congress.

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Challenge: Seek by Canadian Challenge: 2000, a 90 percent reduction

in the release of mercury, or where warranted the use of

mercury, from polluting sources resulting from human

activity in the Great Lakes Basin. This target is considered

as an interim reduction target and, in consultation with

stakeholders in the Great Lakes Basin, will be revised if

warranted, following completion of the 1997 COA review

of mercury use, generation, and release from Ontario

sources.

U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: Seek by 2006, a 75 percent reduction in

total releases of dioxins and furans (2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity

equivalents) from sources resulting from human activity.

This challenge will apply to the aggregate of releases to

the air nationwide and of releases to the water within the

Great Lakes Basin. Seek by 2006, reductions in releases,

that are within, or have the potential to enter the Great

Lakes Basin, of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and

benzo(a)pyrene [B(a)P] from sources resulting from

human activity.

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Challenge: Seek by Canadian Challenge: 2000, a 90 percent reduction

in releases of dioxins, furans, HCB, and B(a)P, from

sources resulting from human activity in the Great Lakes

Basin, consistent with the 1994 COA. Actions will focus

on the 2,3,7,8 substituted congeners of dioxins and furans

in a manner consistent with the TSMP.

U.S. and Canadian Challenge: U.S. and Canadian Challenge: Promote pollution

prevention and the sound management of Level II

substances, to reduce levels in the environment of those

substances nominated jointly by both countries, and to

conform with the laws and policies of each country,

including pollution prevention, with respect to those

substances nominated by only one country. Increase

knowledge on sources and environmental levels of these

substances.

U.S. and Canadian Challenge: U.S. and Canadian Challenge: Assess atmospheric inputs

of Strategy substances to the Great Lakes. The aim of this

effort is to evaluate and report jointly on the contribution

and significance of long-range transport of Strategy

substances from world-wide sources. If ongoing longrange sources are confirmed, work within international

frameworks to reduce releases of such substances.

U.S. and Canadian Challenge: U.S. and Canadian Challenge: Complete or be well

advanced in remediation of priority sites with

contaminated bottom sediments in the Great Lakes Basin

by 2006.
7

Priority Priority Priority Activities Activities

To meet the above challenges, EC and USEPA will

implement the four-step analytical framework outlined

earlier and will regularly reassess progress being made.

Through this framework, the governments will engage

key partners, both inside and outside the Basin, in the

process of setting more specific milestones and in

developing and implementing solutions to achieve those

milestones. Where possible, formal or informal

agreements may be developed. EC and USEPA will

publicly recognize the successful efforts undertaken by

all segments of society.

In addition, EC and USEPA will enlist the support of

municipalities, industries, product manufacturers and

others outside the Basin to assist in meeting the challenges

in the Strategy, especially for those substances which may

be entering the Great Lakes via long-range transport,

consistent with the approaches outlined in the Strategy.

Joint Pr Joint Pr Joint Progress

Measurement and ement and

Reporting Reporting Reporting Activities Activities

The following are examples of joint priority CanadianU.S. activities. EC and USEPA will review these joint

projects annually for additions and/or modifications.

It is recognized that, for some of the Level I and II

substances, measurement of releases or ambient levels is

not always feasible using routine sampling and analytical

techniques. EC and USEPA are committed to adopting,

where feasible or necessary, a range of indicators from

process measurements (e.g., the number of formal or

informal agreements entered into with business sectors

to achieve specific reductions) to environmental endpoints

(e.g., fish contaminant levels) in order to measure

progress. Indicators will be identified to address the use,

generation, and release of Strategy substances. The

Strategy recognizes that the information contributed by

our ongoing joint emissions inventory work will be

extremely useful in addressing major sources within the

jurisdictions bordering the Great Lakes.

To fulfill the implementation requirements of this Strategy

and other critical bilateral Great Lakes activities, EC and

USEPA will work with federal, state, and provincial

departments and agencies, to review, within the context

of existing resources, the state of Great Lakes related

surveillance and monitoring programs in order to

improve their coordination.

EC and USEPA commit jointly to report on progress

(including release reductions leading to virtual

elimination) under this Strategy at the biennial meeting

of SOLEC or another appropriate forum. In addition, EC

and USEPA will periodically convene a stakeholder forum

to assess progress, identify new opportunities for

reductions, and, if appropriate, evaluate the status of the

Level I and II substances and refine the challenge

milestones. These reporting mechanisms may be modified

if necessary.

As well, in order to assess progress toward achieving the

above commitments, EC and USEPA will establish a

process for determining baseline release levels and

loadings of Level I and II substances through a data

synthesis and modelling effort, based on best available

data and scientific information.

Significant Issues Significant Issues

EC and USEPA will work together to address significant

toxic substances-related issues which affect the whole

Great Lakes Basin throughout the implementation of this

Strategy. These issues will be selected in consultation with

our partners. For example, these issues may include the

transboundary effects of incineration, the transboundary

movement of hazardous wastes and bilateral sectorspecific pollution prevention initiatives.

The technical support document (Attachment 1) describes

more detailed action steps to be undertaken either

individually by EC and USEPA, or jointly by both, in

conjunction with their partners, to meet each challenge.
8

Approved by:

Carol Browner

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

April 7, 1997

Sergio Marchi

Minister of the Environment

Government of Canada

April 7, 1997

Sergio Marchi and Carol Browner

Signing the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
A-1

Appendix I Appendix I Appendix I

PERSISTENT TOXIC SUBSTANCES

FOCUSED ON BY THE FOCUSED ON BY THE CANADA-- CANADA--

UNITED STATES STRATEGY FOR THE

VIRTUAL ELIMINATION OF PERSISTENT

TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN THE GREAT

LAKES

Level I Substances

 Aldrin/dieldrin

Benzo(a)pyrene {B(a)P}

Chlordane

DDT (+DDD+DDE)

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)

Alkyl-lead

Mercury and mercury compounds

Mirex

Octachlorostyrene

PCBs

PCDD (Dioxins) and PCDF (Furans)

Toxaphene

Level II Substances

 Cadmium and cadmium compounds

1,4-dichlorobenzene

3,3'-dichlorobenzidine

Dinitropyrene

Endrin

Heptachlor (+Heptachlor epoxide)

Hexachlorobutadiene (+Hexachloro-1,3-butadiene)

Hexachlorocyclohexane

4,4'-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)

Pentachlorobenzene

Pentachlorophenol

Tetrachlorobenzene (1,2,3,4- and 1,2,4,5-)

Tributyl tin

Plus PAHs as a group, including but not limited to:

Anthracene

Benzo(a)anthracene

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene

Perylene

Phenanthrene

How Strategy Substances wer How Strategy Substances were Selected

Level I Substances

Substances were selected on the basis of their previous

nomination to lists relevant to the pollution of the Great

Lakes Basin Ecosystem. These included:

• "Bioaccumulative chemicals of concern" (BCCs) from the

"Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes

System," USEPA, March 1995;

• Substances identified by the "Canada-Ontario Agreement

Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA)," 1994;

• Substances identified as critical pollutants by the International Joint Commission (IJC), 1987;

• Substances designated "Lakewide Critical Pollutants" in

Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs);

As a measure of further corroboration for their

environmental impact, reference was made to the

persistent organic pollutants (POPs) of concern identified

in the United Nations Environment Programme

Governing Council Decision 18/32 of May 1995, and

incorporated into the Council of the Commission for

Environmental Cooperation's Sound Management of

Chemicals Agreement between the U.S., Canada, and

Mexico (Resolution #95-5), October 1995.

The intent of the Strategy is to identify and focus efforts

on those substances which are persistent and toxic,

especially, but not exclusively, those which bioaccumulate.

Rather than use a new screening and assessment process,

the Strategy seeks to build upon the most recent and

relevant science-based selection processes used in either

country. These processes considered a wide range of

factors such as chemical and physical properties, potential

to cause cancer, toxicity, risk to human health and wildlife,

presence in the environment, as well as adverse impacts

observed in the environment. Asymmetries in the

approaches or information used by the two nations, or in

definitions of bioaccumulation produced some differences

in lists identified by each country. However, because the

Strategy is a binational activity, the final list of chemicals

was the result of agreement on the nominations from the

two countries.

Level I Substances

aldrin/dieldrin1,2,3,4,5

benzo(a)pyrene2,3,4

chlordane1,2,4,5

DDT (+DDD+DDE) 1,2,3,4,5

hexachlorobenzene1,2,3,4,5

Alkyl-lead2,3,4

mercury and compounds1,2,3,4

mirex1,2,3,4,5

octachlorostyrene1,2,4

PCBs1,2,3,4,5

PCDD (Dioxins) and PCDF (Furans)1,2,3,4,5

toxaphene1,2,3,4,5

Legend: 1

U.S. BCC

2

Canadian COA

3

IJC Critical Pollutant

4

LaMP Lakewide Critical Pollutant

5

POPs from CEC Council Resolution #95-5

Level II Substances

Level II substances are those for which one country or

the other has grounds to indicate its persistence in the

environment, potential for bioaccumulation and toxicity.

These grounds have not as yet been sufficiently
A-2

considered by both nations such that they can agree to

set joint challenge goals for these substances at this time.

Until and unless these substances are placed on the Level

I list, the governments encourage stakeholders to

undertake pollution prevention activities to reduce levels

in the environment of those substances nominated jointly

by both countries, and to conform with the laws and

policies of each country with respect to those substances

nominated by only one country.

Level II Substances

cadmium and cadmium compounds2,4

1,4-dichlorobenzene2

3,3'-dichlorobenzidine2

dinitropyrene2

endrin5

heptachlor (and heptachlor epoxide)5

hexachlorobutadiene and hexachloro-1,3-butadiene1

hexachlorocyclohexane 1,2,4,6

4,4'-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)2

pentachlorobenzene1

pentachlorophenol2

tetrachlorobenzene (1,2,3,4- and 1,2,4,5-)1

tributyl tin2

PAHs as a group, including anthracene,

benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(ghi)perylene, perylene,

and phenanthrene2

Legend:

1

U.S. BCC

2

Canadian COA

3

IJC Critical Pollutant

4

LaMP Lakewide Critical Pollutant

5

POPs from CEC Council Resolution #95-5

6

In Canada, all agricultural pesticides were excluded

from the COA Tier II list and are dealt with separately

under COA and are not Canadian nominations to this

list.

Future Changes in the

Chemical Listing Pr Chemical Listing Process

USEPA and EC intend to consult with stakeholders on

proposed changes to the lists at the biennial meeting of

SOLEC or another appropriate forum. Existing processes

for nominating or elevating substances will be used e.g.,

BCCs in the U.S., TSMP, and COA in Canada, or LaMP

Critical Pollutants. It is not the intent of the Strategy to

initiate a new nominating process. Existing nominating

and chemical screening processes already include a strong

public participation component.

The two nations will share information regarding the

persistence, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity of

Level II substances. If a substance meets Level I criteria,

the two countries will set binational virtual elimination

challenges for it. Elevation to Level I or removal of a

substance from Level II will be made with appropriate

opportunity for public review and comment.

Technical Support Document echnical Support Document Attachment 1

ACTIONS UNDER THE BINATIONAL

STRATEGY

For the U.S.3, the baseline from which reductions will

be measured in most cases is the most recent and

appropriate inventory. In the case of mercury, for

example, the most recent inventory is based on

estimated emissions during the early 1990s. For

Canada, the baseline is defined by a 1988 emissions

inventory based on the ARET program.

Canada recognizes that the GLWQA remains in

perpetuity while COA expires in 2000. At that time,

Canada and Ontario will review progress and assess

what further steps would be required to ensure that

Canada's obligations under the GLWQA and the

Strategy are being met.

The following list of activities is not meant to be

exhaustive or comprehensive; rather, it is illustrative

of the many activities currently taking place or

expected to take place. We understand that the states,

Tribes, the Province of Ontario, First Nations, and

Great Lakes stakeholders are undertaking many

additional actions to achieve toxic reductions. For

purposes of brevity, we have listed selected actions

only.

U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: Confirm by 1998 that there is no longer

use or release from sources that enter the Great Lakes

Basin of five bioaccumulative pesticides (chlordane,

aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex, and toxaphene), and of the

industrial byproduct/contaminant octachlorostyrene. If

ongoing, long-range sources of these substances from

outside of the U.S. are confirmed, work within

international frameworks to reduce or phase out releases

of these substances.

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Challenge: Report by 1997, that there is no

longer use, generation or release from Ontario sources

that enter the Great Lakes of five bioaccumulative

pesticides (chlordane, aldrin/dieldrin, DDT, mirex, and

toxaphene), and of the industrial byproduct/contaminant

3 When developing the Strategy and the reduction targets, the U.S. started with the presumption that releases of the Level I substances could

be reduced by roughly an order of magnitude (90 percent) by 2006. Early drafts of the Strategy contained this goal. However, analysis of

baseline emissions inventories has shown in some cases that reductions of this level may not be practical from a technical or economic

standpoint. For instance, an analysis of U.S. mercury emissions shows that even a considerable regulatory and pollution prevention effort is

unlikely to result in reductions of 90 percent between 1991 and 2006. However, a reduction of roughly one-half from the emissions levels in

the most recent mercury emissions inventory is believed to be feasible. Thus, the U.S. challenge in the binational Strategy sets a goal of 50

percent reduction in mercury emissions by 2006.
A-3

octachlorostyrene. If ongoing, long-range sources of these

substances from outside of Canada are confirmed, work

within international frameworks to reduce or phase out

releases of these substances.

• EC and USEPA will continue to support Great Lakes

watershed "clean sweeps," which receive unwanted and

hazardous agricultural chemicals for appropriate disposal.

These programs have previously received sizeable

quantities of these pesticides.

• EC and USEPA will undertake actions to verify that these

five pesticides are no longer used or released in the Great

Lakes watershed, based on the weight of evidence from

use and environmental monitoring data. EC will also

undertake actions to verify no commercial production, use

or importation of these five pesticides in the Great Lakes

watershed, based on the weight of evidence from use and

environmental monitoring data. In the U.S., it is recognized that there may be continued legal use of some of

these cancelled pesticides; the goal is to encourage

decreased use of these products. In addition, alternative

methods of disposal are encouraged.

• EC and USEPA will verify that octachlorostyrene (OCS) is

no longer deliberately released to the Great Lakes watershed; efforts to eliminate OCS formation as a byproduct

will be promoted.

• If ongoing local sources of toxaphene in Lakes Superior

and Michigan are confirmed, undertake appropriate

actions to seek reductions. If ongoing long-range sources

of toxaphene are confirmed, work within international

frameworks to reduce or phase out releases of the substance.

• Assess and pursue recommendations from the joint U.S.-

Canada technical workshop on toxaphene in the Great

Lakes, held in Spring 1996.

• EC and USEPA will develop and implement a joint

monitoring plan through the LaMP monitoring committee

to track toxaphene levels in Lake Superior. Monitoring of

toxaphene in Lake Michigan and the high Arctic will be

integrated with Lake Superior monitoring to track

reductions in this class of pollutant.

In the United States: In the United States:

• USEPA will work with stakeholders to reduce reliance on

high-risk pesticides and to promote wider use of

biointensive Integrated Pest Management. Additionally,

USEPA will work with the states to help incorporate such

concepts in the development of their State Management

Plans (SMPs) to protect ground water from pesticide

contamination.

In Canada: In Canada:

• Registration of chlordane, aldrin/dieldrin, DDT and

toxaphene was voluntarily discontinued by the registrants. Mirex was never registered as a pest control

product in Canada. The federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is working with stakeholders on risk

reduction strategies and to support the implementation

and use of sustainable pest management strategies such as

integrated pest management. Partners in these initiatives

include provincial governments, both regulatory and

extension programs, pesticide manufacturers, researchers,

federal government departments, grower and trade

associations, and environmental groups.

U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: Confirm by 1998, that there is no longer

use of alkyl-lead in automotive gasoline. Support and

encourage stakeholder efforts to reduce alkyl-lead releases

from other sources.

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Challenge: Seek by Canadian Challenge: 2000, a 90 percent reduction

in use, generation, or release of alkyl-lead consistent with

the 1994 COA.

In the United States: In the United States:

In concert with stakeholders, investigate measures to

reduce alkyl-lead from other sources.

In Canada: In Canada:

• Provincial monitoring programs indicate a 96 percent

decline in atmospheric lead levels to date.

• It is estimated that releases of alkyl-lead (1,000 kg/yr) in

Ontario are almost entirely from aviation fuel. Minor

generation through industrial or mining processes

utilizing lead is possible and will be investigated. Elimination of alkyl-lead in aviation fuel will be investigated in

partnership with responsible sources.

U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: Seek by U.S. Challenge: 2006, a 90 percent reduction

nationally of high-level PCBs (>500 ppm) used in electrical

equipment. Ensure that all PCBs retired from use are

properly managed and disposed of to prevent accidental

releases within or to the Great Lakes Basin.

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Challenge: Seek Canadian Challenge: by 2000, a 90 percent reduction

of high-level PCBs (>1 percent PCBs) that were once, or

are currently, in service and accelerate destruction of

stored high-level PCB wastes which have the potential to

enter the Great Lakes Basin, consistent with the 1994 COA.

In the United States: In the United States:

PCB production was banned in the U.S. in 1977; certain

uses were banned while other existing PCBs could be used

for the remainder of their useful, economic life. The most

significant remaining use of high- and low-level PCBs is

in electrical equipment. These PCBs may pose risk due to

the potential for spills. This challenge goal is targeted at

increasing the pace of removal of high-level PCBs in

electrical equipment so as to minimize the risk of releases

to the environment. The challenge goal takes into account

the usual process of retiring or decommissioning electrical

equipment.

Transformers: Reductions will be measured using as a

baseline the estimated 200,000 transformers containing

high-level PCBs in use in 1994. This figure includes an

estimate of the transformers containing intentionally

manufactured PCBs, or askarel, and an estimate of the

transformers containing mineral oil dielectric fluid

contaminated to concentrations greater than 500 ppm. In
A-4

striving to reduce the number of transformers containing

high-level PCBs, USEPA will also strive to reduce the

number of transformers containing low-level PCBs.

Capacitors: Reductions will be measured using as a

baseline the estimated 1,473,000 capacitors containing

high-level PCBs in use in 1994.

The U.S. has already achieved substantial reductions in

the amount of PCB wastes in existence within its borders.

On a national basis, the U.S. disposed of (i.e., destroyed)

3.4 billion kilograms of PCB wastes during 1990-94. In

addition, a number of Great Lakes electric utilities have

already removed almost 90 percent of the PCBs that they

once had in service. However, there are many facilities

whose electrical equipment contains PCBs. Progress

toward phase down at these facilities is unknown; this

goal seeks the voluntary accelerated phase down of

remaining high- and low-level PCBs at these facilities.

Concurrently, as described elsewhere in this Strategy,

USEPA will continue ongoing cleanup activities involving

sediment contaminated with PCBs.

• U.S. progress in relation to this objective will be measured

based upon data submitted to EPA regarding PCB

removals from service and PCB wastes destroyed.

• The U.S. aim is to promote accelerated removal of PCBs on

a voluntary basis, with an emphasis on high-level PCBs

(those >500ppm) in electrical equipment, while ensuring

compliance with present management requirements for

PCBs that may be used indefinitely. In addressing this

challenge, USEPA will give priority to sources in areas

with the greatest potential to affect the Basin.

• USEPA will finalize the PCB Disposal Amendments,

proposed in 1994 (50 FR 62788-62877, December 6, 1994),

which aim to reduce disposal costs through reduced

administrative requirements for, and self implementation

of, certain activities, including the decontamination (of

equipment and materials) and disposal of PCBs.

• USEPA, in cooperation with Great Lakes states, may

consult with potential users of PCBs such as utilities,

government facilities, commercial buildings, and manufacturing facilities, including pulp and paper mills, steel

mills, aluminum smelters, and transformer rebuilders, and

request their accelerated removal of high-level PCBs

(those >500 ppm) from use.

• USEPA will, through the issuance of grants, promote

activities involving the collection of information on the

use, release, disposal or environmental levels of PCBs at

any concentration.

• USEPA will finalize the Reclassification of PCB and PCB

Contaminated Transformer Rule, proposed in the Federal

Register of November 18, 1993, which aims to reduce the

regulatory and economic burdens associated with

reclassifying electrical equipment by amending reclassification requirements.

• USEPA will request that efforts promoting the reduction of

PCBs be included in cooperative agreements with states.

In Canada: In Canada:

• Over 40 percent of Ontario's high-level PCBs have been

decommissioned. Continued efforts to decommission the

remaining PCBs to meet the 90 percent target will be

pursued in conjunction with owners and interested

stakeholders, with a goal of "one-stop decommissioning

and destruction" where possible.

• The target for PCB destruction applies to the 18,614 tonnes

of high-level PCB wastes now in storage; 1300 tonnes have

been destroyed as of December 1995. Demonstrations of

new technologies for PCB destruction are being undertaken, in partnership with PCB owners across Ontario.

Consolidation of small quantities for destruction, and

decontamination to reduce storage/destruction volumes,

is being considered.

• New federal regulations, effective February 1997, permit

Canadian PCB wastes to be exported to the U.S. for

destruction under strict environmental controls. These

new controls will expedite the elimination of existing

Canadian PCB wastes presently in storage.

• Significant progress is being made by the federal government on the decommissioning and destruction of federally-owned PCBs in the Great Lakes watershed. Over 50

percent of federally-owned PCBs have been decommissioned and destroyed. Work continues by federal government departments on the decommissioning and destruction of their remaining inventories.

U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: Seek by U.S. Challenge: 2006, a 50 percent reduction

nationally in the deliberate use of mercury and a 50

percent reduction in the release of mercury from sources

resulting from human activity. The release challenge will

apply to the aggregate of releases to the air nationwide

and of releases to the water within the Great Lakes Basin.

This challenge is considered an interim reduction target

and, in consultation with stakeholders, will be revised if

warranted, following completion of the Mercury Study

Report to Congress.

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Challenge: Seek by Canadian Challenge: 2000, a 90 percent reduction

in the release of mercury, or where warranted the use of

mercury, from polluting sources resulting from human

activity in the Great Lakes Basin. This target is considered

as an interim reduction target and, in consultation with

stakeholders in the Great Lakes Basin, will be revised if

warranted, following completion of the 1997 COA review

of mercury use, generation, and release from Ontario

sources.

Through the Lake Superior Binational Program, Canada

and the U.S., along with Ontario, Michigan, Minnesota

and Wisconsin, have begun implementing a zero

discharge demonstration project for mercury. A use-source

tree for mercury was developed, and emission estimates

generated. Strategies for reducing mercury emissions to

"zero" are being developed in consultation with the Lake

Superior Binational Forum. The Forum has provided

recommendations to the governments consisting of a

timeline for achieving zero discharge of mercury.
A-5

In the United States: In the United States:

The primary remaining source of mercury in the Great

Lakes ecosystem is atmospheric deposition of mercury

emissions, often transported over long distances. The U.S.

is using the most recent mercury emissions inventory, i.e.,

that which was conducted during the early 1990s, to

measure reductions. This inventory suggests that the U.S.

currently releases about 200 tons of mercury to the

atmosphere annually. Standards for municipal waste

combustors (which have been finalized for major sources

and which will be re-promulgated for minor sources) and

medical waste incinerators (proposed) will, when

implemented by 2002, provide about a 70 ton reduction

in mercury emissions, or 35 percent of current total U.S.

emissions. Implementation of other Maximum Available

Control Technology (MACT) standards offers the

probability of further mercury emission reductions,

though these cannot be estimated prior to their

development. Direct controls on emissions will be

complemented by the promotion of innovative

technologies to reduce use and increase recycling, in order

to reduce the amount of mercury entering the incinerator

waste stream. Increased consumption of fossil fuels may,

however, increase mercury emissions in the future. The

U.S. has reduced mercury use 75 percent during the past

15 years, most of which has occurred since 1988. Given a

30-year trend away from mercury use in the U.S., it is

expected that companies will continue to develop and

market mercury-free alternatives as was done with

alkaline batteries. Chlorine production, for example, is

the largest national use of mercury. However, as new

chlorine production plants are built, this industry is

shifting from the mercury cell process to successor

technologies which avoid the use of mercury. USEPA

expects to release its Mercury Report to Congress in 1998.

• With the assistance of the Great Lakes states and others,

USEPA will consult with potential users and releasers to

seek their commitment to release and use reduction

targets. Several Great Lakes states have mercury task

forces which are working with stakeholders to undertake

innovative mercury pollution prevention activities.

• USEPA and their Great Lakes state partners propose to

include mercury release and use reduction as a goal to be

included in the Performance Partnership Process, giving

each state the opportunity to fund state-specific mercury

projects, reflective of priorities in each state.

• USEPA will seek the assistance and cooperation of the

Great Lakes states to target one or two specific sectors to

undertake a major voluntary effort to reduce emissions

and releases.

• USEPA will explore innovative approaches to reduce

mercury, e.g., labelling requirements, reductions in use in

non-essential items, or through product substitutions.

• USEPA will help strengthen and streamline federal/state

coordination of mercury reduction activities by inviting

participation in national mercury initiatives, and by

helping to convene periodic Great Lakes meetings or

symposia on mercury reduction activities, including state

mercury reduction legislative initiatives, private sector

actions, and other innovative projects.

• USEPA has promulgated standards for municipal waste

combustors and proposed standards for medical waste

incinerators.

• USEPA is developing rules for hazardous waste incinerators and cement kilns which burn hazardous wastes.

Implementation of these rules should reduce mercury

emissions from these sectors.

• USEPA expects that this challenge can be met primarily

through existing and proposed regulations of municipal

waste combustors and medical waste incinerators,

supplemented by voluntary initiatives. USEPA does not

expect this challenge to require new regulatory initiatives.

In addressing this challenge, USEPA will give priority to

sources in areas with the greatest potential to affect the

Basin.

• Implementation of Clean Air Act provisions which apply

to other sectors which emit mercury may provide further

reductions; it is not possible, however, to estimate

resulting reductions, prior to development of these

standards.

• The U.S. federal government (DOD, EPA) will study

alternatives to the sale of surplus mercury from DOD

stockpiles. The U.S. government holds 11.5 million

pounds of mercury, which made it one of the world's

principal suppliers before sales were suspended in 1994,

pending review of environmental implications.

• USEPA will study alternatives to the incineration option

for treatment of organomercuric hazardous wastes.

In Canada: In Canada:

• It has been estimated that between 2,700 and 3,450 kg of

mercury are released to the atmosphere in Ontario

annually from anthropogenic sources, while up to 2,500

kg are released to the waters of the Great Lakes Basin

annually. Through an analysis of mercury uses and

sources, significant sources of mercury have been identified and prioritized. These sources will be encouraged to

develop strategies to reduce their releases by 90 percent

from a baseline year of 1988 through adoption of pollution

prevention measures.

• In partnership with Pollution Probe, Canada and Ontario

have identified potential industrial partners to participate

in a unique three-way initiative to reduce or eliminate

mercury in industrial or commercial applications. Coordination of this effort with U.S. partners is being considered,

and the findings and approaches are being shared with

the U.S. Virtual Elimination Pilot Project.

• Activities by companies to date have resulted in significant reductions in mercury content in batteries (60 - 90

percent), fluorescent lamps (44 percent) and switches,

while further reductions are planned, such as 70 percent

by fluorescent lamp manufacturers by 2000. One impact of
A-6

past mercury usage is that landfill emissions may be a

source of mercury releases in the Great Lakes Basin, but

the quantities released and possible control mechanisms

need further consideration.

• In applying the analytical framework in addressing

mercury, relevant information from research projects

undertaken by Environment Canada, Natural Resources

Canada, and other agencies will be considered.

• Canada will work with the U.S. and Mexico in implementing the North American Regional Action Plan for Mercury

and will incorporate mercury reduction targets in its

partnerships with commercial and industrial sectors in

Ontario.

U.S. Challenge: U.S. Challenge: Seek by U.S. Challenge: 2006, a 75 percent reduction in

total releases of dioxins and furans (2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity

equivalents) from sources resulting from human activity.

This challenge will apply to the aggregate of releases to

the air nationwide and of releases to the water within the

Great Lakes Basin. Seek by 2006, reductions in releases,

that are within, or have the potential to enter the Great

Lakes Basin, of HCB and B(a)P from sources resulting

from human activity.

Canadian Challenge: Canadian Challenge: Seek Canadian Challenge: by 2000, a 90 percent reduction

in releases of dioxins, furans, HCB, and B(a)P, from

sources resulting from human activity in the Great Lakes

Basin, consistent with the 1994 COA. Actions will focus

on the 2,3,7,8 substitute congeners of dioxins and furans

in a manner consistent with the TSMP.

Through the Lake Superior Binational Program, Canada

and the U.S., along with Ontario, Michigan, Minnesota

and Wisconsin, have begun implementing a zero

discharge demonstration project for dioxins, furans, HCB

and octachlorostyrene. Analysis of uses and sources for

these pollutants were developed as were emission

estimates. Strategies for reducing emissions to "zero" are

being developed in consultation with the Lake Superior

Binational Forum. The Forum has provided

recommendations to the governments consisting of

timelines for achieving zero discharge of critical

pollutants.

In the United States: In the United States:

• USEPA will use its September 1994 draft dioxin Reassessment as an interim baseline for calculating dioxin emission reductions. Once USEPA has completed and released

its final dioxin Reassessment, it will use the

Reassessment's emissions inventory for 1987 as the

challenge baseline. In the draft Reassessment, USEPA

estimated that total releases to air from all sources is 9300

grams/annually, with 5100 grams from medical waste

incinerators (55 percent) and 3000 grams from municipal

waste incinerators (32 percent). Over a dozen sources

make up the remaining 1200 grams.

• USEPA will complete its re-evaluation of the hazards

presented by dioxin, as outlined in the draft Reassessment

report released during 1994 for public comment. The

Agency will also complete a policy assessment of dioxin,

anticipated to be finalized with the release of the Final

Reassessment.

• USEPA has promulgated standards for major source

municipal waste combustors, and will finalize standards

for medical waste incinerators and for minor source

municipal waste combustors. These combustors and

incinerators are regarded as significant sources of dioxins

and furans; these substances are inadvertent by-products

of combustion. Implementation of these standards is

anticipated to reduce releases of dioxins from these sectors

by more than 75 percent by 2006.

• Sizable reductions in HCB emissions are anticipated from

municipal waste combustors and from cement kilns that

burn hazardous wastes. Improvement for incineration of

HCB-contaminated waste is also likely. Current information does not yet provide support for a more specific

reduction challenge but as soon as data are available, a

target will be included.

• Since current information does not yet provide support for

a more specific reduction challenge for B(a)P, the U.S. will

continue efforts to identify and quantify emissions of

PAHs (and B(a)P in particular). Used oil re-refining may

reduce the amount of B(a)P released to the environment.

In Canada: In Canada:

Significant progress has been made in meeting this

challenge under the COA and related activities such as

the ARET program. This trend will be further promoted

in partnerships focusing on priority sources of these

pollutants. Implementation of the federal government's

TSMP will facilitate additional cooperative actions in these

and other sectors, consistent with the mandates of the

different federal departments.

• Preliminary Ontario release estimates for B(a)P, HCB,

dioxins and furans suggest more than 90 percent of the

releases are direct atmospheric releases. A substantial

natural emission of B(a)P may also be present from forest

fires, complicating analysis of environmental trends in this

contaminant. This analysis has identified and prioritized

sources of these pollutants for subsequent development of

reduction strategies.

• Through ARET, participating companies have reported

reductions in emissions of HCB of 80 percent and of

dioxins and furans of 98 - 99 percent. Through pollution

prevention, participating companies reported 4,300 tonnes

of hydrocarbon emissions and 16,000 tonnes of other

waste emissions reduced. Participation and reporting of

reductions undertaken voluntarily is growing in the

Canadian portion of the Great Lakes Basin, signalling a

trend away from controls and treatment toward eliminating use and generation.

• Both Canada and Ontario have promulgated stringent

effluent requirements for the pulp and paper sector and

pulp mills have invested heavily in the past five years to

achieve compliance with the regulations. Canada and

Ontario will confirm in 1997 that all mills using chlorinebased bleaching are in full compliance with the "non-
A-7

measurable" effluent concentration requirements and have

virtually eliminated dioxins and furans from their

effluent.

• Dioxins, furans, and HCB have been assessed and

declared toxic under the Canadian Environmental

Protection Act. HCB and the 2,3,7,8 substituted congeners

of dioxins and furans are proposed for management on a

national level under Track I (virtual elimination) of the

TSMP. A federal/provincial task force is being established

to evaluate control options for dioxins and furans and a

multistakeholder group will also be established soon to

develop options for HCB. Similarly, control options for

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) including B(a)P

are being developed for the major source sectors such as

iron and steel and wood preservation.

• Registration of HCB as a fungicidal seed treatment has

been discontinued in Canada since 1976, and uses of HCB

as a pesticide are considered illegal under the Pest Control

Products Act.

• In lifting its ban on new municipal waste incinerators,

Ontario has adopted emissions limits at least as stringent

as the MACT standards adopted in the U.S.

U.S. and Canadian Challenge: U.S. and Canadian Challenge: Promote pollution

prevention and the sound management of Level II

substances, to reduce levels in the environment of those

substances nominated jointly by both countries, and to

conform with the laws and policies of each country,

including pollution prevention, with respect to those

substances nominated by only one country. Increase

knowledge on sources and environmental levels of these

substances.

In Canada, the federal government will manage Level II

substances consistent with federal legislation, the TSMP

and COA.

• EC and USEPA will investigate levels of these contaminants in the Great Lakes where appropriate and, where

possible, gather additional information on resulting

impacts to the ecosystem.

• EC and USEPA will also continue to inventory emissions

of selected substances and model their loading to the

Great Lakes.

• EC will develop information on the occurrence, fate and

effects of organometal compounds (including tributyl tin).

• EC will also upgrade and improve public access to an

existing import/export information database concerning

imports/exports of hazardous waste.

• Implementation of the Clean Air Act in the U.S. will

substantially reduce emissions of PAHs.

U.S. and Canadian Challenge: U.S. and Canadian Challenge: Assess atmospheric inputs

of Strategy substances to the Great Lakes. The aim of this

effort is to evaluate and report jointly on the contribution

and significance of long-range transport of Strategy

substances from world-wide sources. If ongoing longrange sources are confirmed, work within international

frameworks to reduce releases of such substances.

• EC and USEPA will, as a priority, coordinate efforts to

identify sources of atmospheric pollutants in order to

better define and coordinate emission control programs.

• EC and USEPA will maintain atmospheric deposition

monitoring stations to detect deposition and transport of

Strategy substances.

• EC and USEPA will continue research on the atmospheric

science of toxic pollutants to refine and improve existing

source, receptor and deposition models, fundamental to

impact assessment. They will also improve integration of

existing air toxic monitoring networks and data management systems to track deposition of contaminants within

the Great Lakes.

• EC and USEPA will conduct an assessment of the longrange transport of persistent toxic substances from worldwide sources.

• By 1999, Canada will complete inventories of 10 selected

air pollution sources to support assessment of the environmental impacts of air toxics. In addition, by 2001, EC will

demonstrate alternative processes to lessen emissions

from 5 predominant sources.

U.S. and Canadian Challenge: U.S. and Canadian Challenge: Complete or be well

advanced in remediation of priority sites with

contaminated bottom sediments in the Great Lakes Basin

by 2006.

In the United States: In the United States:

• The Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated

Sediments (ARCS) Program, a five-year study/demonstration project relating to the assessment and treatment of

toxic pollutants from bottom sediments, has been undertaken.

• Continue ongoing contaminated sediment cleanup

activities in the following AOCs as well as other priority

areas: Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio; Erie Canal at Lockport,

New York, Fox River, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River,

Indiana; Kalamazoo River, Michigan; Manistique River,

Michigan; Niagara River, New York; Ottawa River, Ohio;

River Raisin, Michigan; Rouge River, Michigan;

Sheboygan River, Wisconsin; and St. Lawrence River, New

York.

• Continue to assess and develop remediation plans for

AOCs, and other contaminated sites.

In Canada: In Canada:

• Document the evaluation and assessment of 250 innovative technologies developed under the auspices of the

Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund for the safe handling and

treatment of contaminated sediments.

• Promote, on a pilot basis, the application and use of a

computerized, searchable and user-friendly Sediment

Technology Directory (SEDTEC) of 250 technologies for

the handling and treatment of sediments, soils, and

sludges.
A-8

• Describe effects and appropriate remediation measures,

working to ensure cleanup of priority contaminated

sediments such as in Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie,

Hamilton Harbour, and Port Hope.

• Develop long-term approaches to remediate intermediate

contamination such as in Jackfish Bay, Metro Toronto, and

Cornwall.

EC and USEPA will encourage and support voluntary

programs by industries to reduce the generation, use, educe the generation, use,

or release of targeted contaminants. geted contaminants.

• Continue or establish partnerships with key Great Lakes

industries (e.g., automotive, printing) to foster "cleaner,

cheaper, smarter" ways of preventing or reducing pollution. Examples include Project XL and ISO 14000.

• Pollution prevention programs will be promoted and

encouraged at targeted industrial facilities discharging to

the Great Lakes using a variety of ongoing efforts,

including within Canada, the Pollution Prevention Pledge

Program for Ontario and ARET. Within the U.S., the

Common Sense Initiative and other programs will support

this action.

GLOSSARY

The following definitions are for purposes of this Strategy

only.

Canada-Ontario Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes

Basin Ecosystem (COA): Basin Ecosystem (COA): Canada and Ontario have

entered into an agreement in 1994 to renew and strengthen

federal-provincial planning, cooperation and

coordination in implementing actions to restore and

protect the ecosystem, to prevent and control pollution

into the ecosystem, and to conserve species, populations

and habitats in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.

Implementation of this agreement contributes

substantially to meeting Canada's obligations under the

1987 GLWQA.

Great Lakes Basin: eat Lakes Basin: The Great eat Lakes Basin: Lakes Basin means all of

the streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies of water that

are within the drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River at

or upstream from the point at which this river becomes

the international boundary between Canada and the U.S.,

as defined by the 1987 GLWQA.

Great Lakes Water Quality ater Quality Agreement of 1978, as

amended by Protocol signed November 18, 1987: otocol signed November 18, 1987: An otocol signed November 18, 1987: 

agreement between the U.S. and Canada to restore and

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity

of the water of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.

Life cycle: Life cycle: Life cycle: Consecutive and interlinked stages of a product

system, from raw material acquisition or generation of

natural resources to the final disposal.

Persistent Toxic Substances: oxic Substances: oxic Substances: Those substances which have

a long half-life in the environment. Substances identified

in the Strategy have been nominated from multiple

selection processes. It is recognized that there are different

definitions of persistence which are used in the various

U.S. and Canadian domestic programs.

Release: Release: A release is any introduction of a toxic chemical Release: 

to the environment as a result of human activity. This

includes emissions to the air; discharges from point and

non-point sources to bodies of water; introductions to

land, including spills or leaks from waste piles, contained

disposal into underground injection wells, or other

sources.

Resulting from human activity: om human activity: Any and all sources om human activity:

resulting from human activity, including but not limited

to releases from industrial or energy-producing processes,

landfilling or other actions.

Toxic Substance: oxic Substance: "Any substance which can cause death,

disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic

mutations, physiological or reproductive malfunctions or

physical deformities in any organism or its offspring, or

which can become poisonous after concentration in the

food chain or in combination with other substances."

Source: 1987 GLWQA