The Great Lakes ecosystem
should be protected from the accumulation of persistent bioaccumulative
toxic substances (PBTSs) that pose an unreasonable risk to human health
or the environment. CGLI supports the goal of virtually eliminating
discharges of PBTSs utilizing a risk-based process for prioritization
and action. The process of virtual elimination must focus on a prioritized
scheme for reducing discharges of PBTSs to the Great Lakes ecosystem
below threshold levels that cause adverse effects
The concept of banning or
sunsetting entire families of substances (such as all chlorinated organics)
is not appropriate, realistic or practical. Since each substance displays
its own unique set of chemical, physical, toxicological and transport/fate
characteristics, logic dictates that each substance be considered on
an individual scientific basis. The Michigan Environmental Science Board
recently released a report entitled "Impacts of Chlorine Use on Environmental
and Public Health" that supports this view, and rejects the concept
of grouping of chemical substances based solely on the consideration
of a single property, e.g. the presence of chlorine.
A well defined set of criteria,
developed with the input of all stakeholders, must be established for
a screening process to determine which substances should be identified
as persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative. Information for ranking and
prioritizing substances for potential discharge reductions and/or further
review under the virtual elimination process should include characteristics
of aquatic, wildlife and human toxicity, persistence in the environment,
and bioaccumulation potential.
If consensus is reached
on the need to reduce discharge loadings and/or take other risk reduction
measures on a voluntary basis during or after the screening phase, then
actions and programs would be developed on an accelerated basis.
Implementation of a virtual
elimination strategy requires a well defined decision-making process.
This process must establish the priority for taking action on specific
substances and provide a range of risk management options based on hazard,
exposure, benefits/availability of lower risk substitutes, and economic/social
impact. Substances would undergo initial screening, and then further
review on a prioritized basis to determine whether or not their discharge
or use pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
The resultant ranking of substances based on risk would provide a reasonable
basis for immediate voluntary discharge/release reduction programs.
The Lakewide Management
Planning (LaMP) program should be utilized to identify the most important
sources of discharge of priority PBTSs, including both point and nonpoint
sources, so that targeted, cost-effective risk reduction measures can
be developed. Use of a multi-media approach and mass balance modeling
will allow identification of major sources and pathways, and reveal
whether or not discharge reductions will truly reduce unacceptable impacts
or allow attainment of threshold levels.
Programs such as the chemical
industry's voluntary Responsible Care initiative can provide protection
of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The codes of management practice embodied
in the Responsible Care commitment require that risk characterization
(hazard and exposure assessment) and risk management evaluations for
chemical products be performed and undergo periodic re-evaluation and
updating. As new information on hazard or exposure potential is generated,
or significant new uses are found for existing products, a review is
triggered to ensure that risk management measures are modified, if necessary,
to protect human health and the environment.
In most cases, available
risk management options, such as source reduction, recycling or enhanced
control techniques should be appropriate and sufficient to address discharges
of PBTSs. For those PBTSs for which environmental or human health impacts
cannot be adequately managed in the Great Lakes Basin with available
risk management tools and options, either product uses should be limited,
or the substance's manufacture, sale, and use should be phased out.
Before proceeding with restrictions or phaseout options, available substitute
substances must be identified and evaluated for environmental and health
risks as well as social and economic impacts. Both the beneficial and
adverse aspects of each substance should be compared before decisions
are finalized. Life cycle assessment may prove to be a useful tool in
facilitating these comparisons.
The virtual elimination
strategy should rely, wherever possible, upon existing voluntary programs,
such as those described below, that can provide appropriate information
and risk reduction/management opportunities. Examples of voluntary discharge
reduction initiatives include:
Canada:
- ARET (Accelerated Reduction/Elimination
of Toxins) program currently being implemented in Canada
- Metal Finishing Pollution
Prevention Project
- Canadian Automobile Manufacturing
Pollution Prevention Project
United States:
- IPT (Industrial Toxics
Program) 33/50 program currently in place in the U.S.
- Automobile industry Pollution
Prevention Project
Many of the member companies
of CGLI are participating in these voluntary programs.