Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy December 2008 Status Report

8/14/2019 Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy December 2008 Status Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/great-lakes-binational-toxics-strategy-december-2008-status-report 1/12

Great Lakes

Binational ToxicsStrategy

Great Lakes

Binational ToxicsStrategy December 2008 Status ReportDecember 2008 Status Report



Cat. Number En161-1/1-2008EISBN 978-1-100-12475-9 (Print)

Cat. Number En161-1/1-2008E-PDFISBN 978-1-100-12476-6 (PDF)

Executive SummaryAs the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) broadens its scope rom a ocus on the Level 1 substances toencompass substances o emerging concern, the governments and stakeholders have acknowledged the need tomodi y the way they both operate and report on progress.

In light o the evolving mandate o the GLBTS, the Parties have also agreed to institute reporting and operationalchanges in order to ensure the continued e ectiveness and success o the Strategy:

To improve the tracking o progress in reducing legacy and emerging substances, the Parties have agreed toprepare a Status Report once every two years, with a more robust ormal GLBTS Progress Report in alternate years. This change takes e ect now, with this 2008 GLBTS Status Report replacing the 2008 annual progress report. The2009 GLBTS Biennial Progress Report will be available in 2010.

To improve the e ciency and ensure the continued e ectiveness o the Strategy, the requency o Workgroup andStakeholder Forum meetings and the means by which they meet have been changed.

The GLBTS and its stakeholders have accomplished much over the past decade to continually improve the healtho the Great Lakes. As it adapts to a broadened scope, the GLBTS will remain an open and transparent process,building on its tradition o continuous multi-stakeholder engagement, and continue to pursue the systematicsharing o in ormation that empowers both voluntary and regulatory activities.

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore,Lake Michigan, IndianaPhoto courtesy o National Park Service, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore



IntroductionSigned in 1997 by Environment Canada (EC) and the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS, or Strategy) established U.S. and Canadianchallenge goals or 12 Level 1 persistent toxic substances, and targeteda list o Level 2 substances or pollution prevention measures. Over the

past 11 years, the governments o Canada and the United States, alongwith stakeholders rom industry, academia, state/provincial and localgovernments, Tribes, First Nations, and environmental and communitygroups have worked together to achieve these goals. Thirteen o theoriginal seventeen challenge goals have been met, and signi cantprogress has been made toward the remaining our. Under the Strategy,EC and US EPA also agreedto consider additionalsubstances that may presentthreats to the Great Lakesecosystem. This statusreport describes recent

progress and recognizesthat the challenge ahead

or the GLBTS is to identi yand address potential newchemical threats to theGreat Lakes Basin.

A Changing GLBTSEC and US EPA recognize the accomplishments o the GLBTS to reduce and eliminate Level 1 substances in theGreat Lakes. While Level 1 substances have declined in the Great Lakes over the past several years (Table 1), a

variety o new substances o emerging concern have been detected, including brominated fame retardantsand perfurochemical compounds (GLBTS 2006 Annual Progress Report, Chapter 8, Environmental Indicators o Progress). In light o these detections, in 2008, the GLBTSIntegration Workgroup decided to shi t the ocus o theGLBTS to substances o emerging concern. In addition,the Integration Workgroup decided to reduce the

requency o ace-to- ace meetings, to consider makinggreater use o electronic means o communications suchas telecon erences and webinars, and to modi y the wayit reports on progress.

The GLBTS is a voluntary orum in which a variety o

stakeholders collaborate to share in ormation anddevise mitigation strategies to address persistent toxicsubstances which impact the Great Lakes Basin. As theGLBTS moves orward to address substances o emergingconcern, EC and US EPA seek to retain its key attributes:an open and transparent process, continued multi-stakeholder engagement, and the systematic sharing o in ormation to empower both voluntary and regulatoryactions.

Inside this EditionIntroduction ................................................1

A Changing GLBTS ....................................1

Substance/Sector Group ........................2

Status o the Level 1 Substances .........3

Changes to the IntegrationWorkgroup andStakeholder orum ....................................4

Progress o the Level 1 Workgroups:

Mercury Workgroup .............................4

PCB Workgroup ......................................4

Dioxin/Furan Workgroup ....................5

HCB/B(a)P Workgroup ........................ ..5

Burn Barrel Subgroup ..........................5

Progress toward the Long-Range Transport Challenge ....................... ..........6

Progress in RemediatingContaminated Sediment ........................7

The Level 1 substances consisto : mercury, polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs), dioxins and

urans, hexachlorobenzene

(HCB), benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P),octachlorostyrene (OCS),alkyl-lead, and fve pesticides:chlordane, aldrin/dieldrin, DDT,mirex, and toxaphene.

GLBTS Annual ReportsAs the GLBTS transitions rom a ocus on theLevel 1 substances to substances o emergingconcern, EC and US EPA have decided, withconcurrence rom stakeholders, to change thereporting mechanisms or the GLBTS. To lessenthe burden o publishing the traditional GLBTSprogress report annually, the governments willnow prepare a ormal progress report onceevery two years and a less ormal status reportin alternate years. This change takes e ect now,with this 2008 GLBTS Status Report replacing the2008 annual progress report. The 2009 GLBTSBiennial Report will be available in 2010.



Substance/Sector GroupIn September 2007, EC and US EPA commenced the GLBTS Substance and Sector Groups. Recognizing themutual interests o the Substance and Sector Groups, the two workgroups were subsequently combined intoone Substance/Sector workgroup to more e ectively undertake the exploration o substances o emergingconcern, which may present threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem, and to explore mitigation strategies and othermanagement options that GLBTS stakeholders might pursue to address these substances.

RationaleConsistent with the objectives o the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), and the Strategy, theobjective o the Substance/Sector Group is to protect and ensure the health and integrity o the Great Lakesecosystem through the identi cation and prevention o the release o toxic substances into the Great Lakes. Underthe Strategy, EC and US EPA are directed to consider substances o emerging concern that may pose threats to theGreat Lakes Basin ecosystem, and to explore mitigation strategies, where warranted. The Strategy also challengesthe Parties to consider “whether new substances which present threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem should beconsidered or inclusion on the Level 1 or 2 lists.”

Activities Terms o re erence or the Substance/Sector Group have been outlined in a dra t Guide to the Substance and Sector Groups . The group has developed a Binational Framework or Identi ying Substances o Potential Threat to the Great Lakes Basin. In consultation with stakeholders, several substances pro les are being developed to evaluate thisFramework. The Substance/Sector Group meets on a quarterly basis.

The ollowing Substance/Sector Group meetings were held in the past year:

• November 30, 2007 teleconference

• June 2-3, 2008 meeting, Burlington, Ontario

• August 7, 2008 teleconference

• September 25, 2008 meeting, Chicago, Illinois

• December 2-3, 2008 meeting, Chicago, IllinoisIn addition, the Substance/Sector Group reported its progress and discussed uture directions at GLBTS IntegrationGroup Meetings.

Next Steps The Substance/Sector Group currently meets on a quarterly basis. In conjunction with Canadian and U.S. nationalprograms, the Parties plan to select a number o candidate substances to evaluate through the Framework and, in consultation with stakeholders, consider potentialmanagement options, as warranted. In the uture, thegroup intends to develop management actions to address

substances o emerging concern that may be undertaken bythe Parties and stakeholders within the GLBTS.

Future e orts o the Substance/Sector Group are expectedto align with work being undertaken by other existing GreatLakes programs, such as ongoing monitoring and surveillancee orts, and the GLWQA, which is currently under review withamendments on the horizon. The Substance/Sector Group’swork will also help in orm a renewed 2010 Canada–Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA). Water all on the Cypress River, Ontario. Photo courtesy o Tim

Leblanc, Ontario Ministry o Natural Resources



Substance Challenge Goals Challenge Goal Met? WorkgroupStatus Future Activities

Alkyl-lead

Canada: By 2000, reduce by 90%the use, generation, or release o alkyl-lead.

Goal met: Over 98% reduction in sources,uses, and releases rom 1988 to 1997 inOntario.

Inactive No plans to reconvene theworkgroup.U.S.: Con rm by 1998 that there

is no longer use o alkyl-lead inautomotive gasoline.

Goal met: In 2000, EPA con rmed nouse o alkyl-lead in automotive gasoline.

NASCAR has agreed to phase-out the useo alkyl-lead in high octane uel by 2008.

DioxinsandFurans

Canadian releases: By 2000,reduce releases in the Great LakesBasin by 90%.

Goal met: 89% reduction (228 grams) intotal releases in the Great Lakes Basinsince 1988.

InactiveContinue to track sources andreleases. Burn Barrel Subgroupreports to HCB/B(a)P Workgroup.

U.S. releases: By 2006, reducereleases (to air nationwide andto waters o the Great Lakes) by75%.

Goal met: 89% reduction achieved since1987.

HCB andB(a)P

Canadian releases: By 2000,reduce releases to the Great LakesBasin by 90%.

B(a)P: 52% reduction in Ontario since1988. HCB: 74% reduction in Ontariosince 1988.

Active

Continue activities to achieveCanada’s 90% reduction goal andto urther reduce U.S. releases.Hold annual ace-to- acemeetings with interim tele-con erences, as needed.

U.S. releases: By 2006, reducereleases to the Great Lakes Basin.

Goal met: 77% reduction in B(a)P releases

in Great Lakes states, 1996 to 2001. HCBemissions reduced rom 8,519 lbs(3,872 kg) in 1990 to 2,911 lbs (1,323 kg)in 1999.* Additional 28% reduction rom1999 to 2002.

Level 1Pesticides

Canada: Report by 1997that there is no longer use,generation, or release o the veLevel 1 pesticides.

Goals met: EPA and EC con rmed that alluses o the Level 1 pesticides have beencancelled, and production acilities havebeen closed.

Inactive No plans to reconvene theworkgroup.U.S.: Con rm by 1998 that there

is no longer use or release o theve Level 1 pesticides in the Great

Lakes Basin.

Mercury

Canadian releases: By 2000,reduce releases by 90% in theGreat Lakes Basin.

Goal met: 90% reduction between 1988and 2006.

Less activein ormation-sharinggroup

Share in ormation and meetperiodically, in collaboration withother mercury-related e orts.

U.S. releases: By 2006, reducereleases (to air nationwide and toGreat Lakes waters) by 50%.

Goal met: Estimated reduction o morethan 50% since 1990.

U.S. use: By 2006, reduce by 50%. Goal met: Estimated reduction o morethan 50% between 1995 and 2003.

OCS

Canada: Report by 1997that there is no longer use,generation, or release o OCS.

Goal met: In 2000, EC concluded thatthere were no documented releases inOntario in 2000.

Inactive No plans to reconvene theworkgroup.U.S.: Con rm by 1998 that there is

no longer use or release o OCS inthe Great Lakes Basin.

Goal met: EPA has concluded that the

challenge goal has been met.

PCBs

Canada: By 2000, reduce by 90%high-level PCBs (>1% PCBs) thatwere once, or are currently, inservice. Accelerate destruction o stored high-level PCB wastes.

Goal met: In Ontario, achieved 90%reduction o high-level PCBs in storage compared to 1993. Goal not met: InOntario, achieved an estimated 70%reduction in high-level PCBs in service since 1989, instead o the targeted 90%reduction.

Active

Continue activities to reducehigh-level PCBs in service. Holdannual ace-to- ace meetingswith interim telecon erences, asneeded.U.S.: By 2006, reduce by 90%

nationally high-level PCBs(>500 ppm PCBs) used inelectrical equipment.

Goal likely met or high-level PCBs intrans ormers, but it is uncertain whetherthe goal has been met or capacitors dueto a lack o data.

* Reductions cannot be used to establish a specifc reduction in HCB emissions since 1990 due to inconsistencies in the 1990 and the 1999 emission inventories and source categorie

Table 1: Status o the Level 1 Substances



Changes to the Integration Workgroupand Stakeholder Forum

The Integration Workgroup will reduce its schedule o quarterly ace-to- ace meetings to semi-annual meetings,and a Stakeholder Forum will be convened annually in conjunction with an Integration Workgroup meeting.Greater use o telecommunications will be considered by both.

Progress o the Level 1 WorkgroupsLevel 1 workgroups will continue to interact on an as-needed basis, through the use o video con erences andwebinars. Progress toward the Level 1 challenge goals is presented in the table on page 3. Additional activitiesundertaken by the Level 1 workgroups in the past year are described below.

Mercury Workgroup The Mercury Workgroup contributed to thedevelopment o a Great Lakes Mercury in Products

Phase-Down Strategy sponsored by the Great LakesRegional Collaboration (GLRC). Implementation o thestrategy has begun in the Great Lakes states (“GreatLakes Mercury in Products Phase-Down Strategy”19 June 2008<http://www.glrc.us/documents/ MercuryPhaseDownStrategy06-19-2008.pd >). Inaddition, a new GLRC-sponsored strategy has beeninitiated, the Great Lakes Mercury Emission ReductionStrategy . Input or this Strategy will be solicited

rom stakeholders on an ongoing basis through theMercury Workgroup. Mercury Workgroup activitieshave decreased in the past year as both Canada andthe United States have met their challenge goals. Inplace o regular workgroup meetings, the MercuryWorkgroup plans to periodically organize and/orsponsor larger science and policy con erences. Itwill continue to share in ormation on e orts relatedto reducing and tracking mercury releases in theenvironment, in addition to ocusing increasedattention on global releases.

PCB WorkgroupIn September 2008, EC published new PCB regulations in Canada Gazette II that are expected to help Canada meetits challenge goal o a 90% reduction o high-level PCBs in service. Regulation requires that equipment containinghigh-level PCBs and low-level PCBs in sensitive locations be phased out by December 2009. Equipment containinglow-level PCBs in all other locations must be phased out by December 2025. The rule also limits the maximumduration o storage o PCBs by generators to 1 year, 1 year at an authorized trans er station, and 2 years at disposal

acilities.

The PCB Workgroup will continue to seek commitments to reduce PCBs through PCB reduction commitmentletters and other PCB phase-out e orts, and to publicize voluntary achievements in PCB reduction. The workgrouphas developed a so tware tool to assist companies in evaluating the costs and bene ts o PCB use, storage, phase-out and elimination programs. The tool is expected to be reely available to the public. US EPA is considering waysto more broadly communicate its availability.

Mercury Collection ProgramsIn Canada, the Clean Air Foundation operates twovoluntary mercury collection programs: Switch Out andSwitch the ‘Stat. Since 2001, as a result o participationby more than 600 automotive recyclers across Canada,the Switch Out program has collected more than200,000 mercury-containing switches rom end-o -li evehicles (~170 kg o mercury). The Switch Out programrecovered approximately 31 kg o mercury rom morethan 36,500 switches in the past year. The Switch the‘Stat program has collected more than 17,100 mercury-containing switches rom thermostats since its launch inApril 2006, 72% o which were recovered in the past year(~31 kg o mercury).

In the United States, Bowling Green State University(BGSU) in Ohio has operated an Elemental MercuryCollection and Reclamation Program since 1998. The

ree program collects and recycles uncontaminatedelemental mercury that is present in a variety o devices,including thermometers, thermostats, and mercuryswitches, as well as bulk mercury. To date, the programhas collected over 23,000 lbs o elemental mercury orrecycling.



To prioritize remaining opportunities or PCB source reductions, the PCB Workgroup has begun to collect andassess in ormation on sources o PCBs other than PCB-containing trans ormers and capacitors. The workgroupis also investigating the status o acilities that purchased PCBs rom Monsanto in the 1970s, in an e ort todetermine the ate o the PCBs and to identi y sites that may warrant investigation or may be in need o clean-up(e.g., abandoned sites with PCB contamination or equipment).

Due to the progress achieved, the PCB Workgroup has reduced its number o ace-to- ace meetings rom two toone per year. With the new Canadian PCB regulation in place, the workgroup believes that it would be valuable orCanada to share their PCB phase out knowledge and experience at this meeting.

Dioxin/Furan WorkgroupIn December 2007, the Dioxin/Furan Workgroup decided to move to inactive status. Both Canada and the UnitedStates have met their goals or dioxins/ urans, reducing releases by approximately 90% to 28 g TEQ in Ontarioand 1,422 g TEQ nationwide in the United States. Through a Decision Tree exercise, the workgroup identi ed teno the top twelve sources as low priorities or the GLBTS to address. Most sources are being managed by existingprograms. Recognizing that historical sources o dioxins/ urans remain in the environment and that they cancontinue to be released rom small sources, the Dioxin/Furan Workgroup co-chairs will continue to track progresson dioxins/ urans through release inventories and environmental monitoring data. The co-chairs may reactivatethe workgroup, i warranted, as new issues arise. The co-chairs will also investigate potential opportunities to

reduce agricultural waste burning and other poorly characterized sources o dioxins/ urans. The largest source o quanti ed dioxin releases remaining in both countries is household garbage burning. The Burn Barrel Subgroupcontinues to address the use o burn barrels and other open burning issues, but now reports to the HCB/B(a)PWorkgroup.

HCB/B(a)P WorkgroupUS EPA and Environment Canada support several programs that help reduce releases o HCB and B(a)P rom dieselengines, residential wood stoves and replaces, scrap tire piles, steel mills, and other sources. The workgroup isevaluating the use o coal tar sealants as a source o B(a)P in the United States, and will begin to review the use o coal tar sealants in Ontario. The workgroup has also updated release inventories or sources o HCB and B(a)P. Themost recent inventory o HCB sources in Ontario totals 13 kg (29 lbs) o releases, a relatively low level o release,but another 8 kg (18 lbs) must be reduced to meet Canada’s HCB challenge goal. Approximately 60,000 lbs o B(a)P are released to the Great Lakes region annually. Major sources o B(a)P in Ontario include residential woodcombustion, use o creosote-treated railway ties, and cokemaking in the steel manu acturing sector (althoughrelease estimates or this sector are under review). The workgroup will continue its e orts to improve the accuracyo the United States and Canadian HCB and B(a)P emission inventories to ensure that all signi cant emissionsources have been identi ed and integrated, including a study o emissions rom certi ed wood stoves and newstudies to measure the impacts o wood smoke and other air pollutants. The workgroup will continue to pursueemission reduction activities rom signi cant B(a)P source sectors. The workgroup will also continue to supportactions that impact HCB releases to the Great Lakes Basin, such as ull li e-cycle management o PCP-treatedwood products, modeling o HCB to the Great Lakes rom North American sources, solicitation o voluntary HCBreductions rom chemical companies, and the e orts o the Burn Barrel Subgroup. The HCB/B(a)P Workgroup hasalso reduced the number o ace-to- ace meetings rom two to one per year.

Burn Barrel Subgroup The Burn Barrel Subgroup continued e orts to reduce emissions rom open garbageburning. Consultation with Great Lakes states, tribes, and Province o Ontario indicatedthat there was value in continuing to address the burn barrel issue and to considerbroadening the scope o the subgroup’s e orts to include other pollutants and relateduncontrolled combustion issues. The subgroup held three telecon erences during2008 and developed a scoping document that identi es objectives and activities toimplement under the expanded scope o the subgroup. The subgroup will continue tohold regular con erence calls to share in ormation and identi y issues or urther action.

Photo courtesy o Patrick Atagi, American Chemistry Council



Progress Toward the Long-RangeTransport Challenge

Under the Strategy, EC and US EPA committed to assessing atmospheric inputs o Strategy substances to theGreat Lakes by evaluating and reporting on the contribution and signi cance o long-range transport o Strategysubstances rom worldwide sources. An example o research e orts conducted in support o this challenge is EC’sEmission Inventory and Multiple Pathways Modeling o HCB to the Great Lakes rom North American Sources , whichused an atmospheric transport model and emission inventories. The major ndings o this study are summarizedbelow.

(1) Given that HCB strongly persists in the environment, and that North American industrial emissions (reported byUS EPA and EC and in the literature) accounted or a lower HCB level in the atmosphere than the air concentrationsmeasured throughout the 2000s, the main source o HCB emissions in North America can be attributed to the pastuse o HCB as a ungicide in agriculture.

(2) Given the very long hal li e o HCB in air and the long period that has elapsed since its ban or agricultural use,air concentrations o HCB across North America have become airly uni orm and stable, and may be a signi cantsource o HCB to the Great Lakes environment.

(3) On an annual basis, the Midwest United States (speci cally states adjacent to the Great Lakes) and Ontariosources have been the leading contributors to atmospheric and Great Lakes basinwide HCB levels. Sources in theNorthwest United States were the second major source o HCB over the Great Lakes, ollowed by sources in theCanadian Prairies and the Southwest United States.

(4) Computation o the HCB soil/air ugacity ratio indicated that strong volatilization took place rom the spring toautumn in most regions o the United States, whereas Canada (except or southern Ontario) remained a receptoro HCB deposition.

(5) In 2000, Lake Michigan received the largest dry deposition o HCB, ollowed by Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie, andOntario. For the same year, Lake Michigan also received the greatest wet deposition, ollowed by Lakes Erie, Huron,Superior, and Ontario (Figure 1). Both dry and wet deposition to the lakes, in 2001, were considerably lower thanthose in 2000, but ollowed almost the same deposition sequence o lakes as those in 2000.

(6) The highest HCB loading due to the net gas (water/air) exchange in 2000 was ound over Lake Superior,ollowed by Lakes Erie, Michigan, Huron, and Ontario. For 2001, the largest gas exchange fux was ound in Lake

Erie (Figure 2). Overall, the results clearly indicate that the Great Lakes had become sources o HCB in the 2000s,where volatilization dominates the net gas exchange.

Figure 2. Annual total net gas exchange uxes (kg yr -1 ) o HCB in theve lakes. Positive values indicate volatilization.

Source: Jianmin Ma, Environment Canada

Figure 1. Modeled annual HCB loadings (kg yr -1 ) to the Great Lakes in 2000due to dry, wet, and total (dry + wet) deposition.Source: Jianmin Ma, Environment Canada



The sink to source reversal o HCB in the Great Lakes likely suggests that lakes have been undergoing a “sel -cleaning” process since the 2000s. While this long-range transport study identi ed sources o HCB that couldbe contributing to the Great Lakes levels, it was not an attempt at identi ying human or biota e ects. However,decreasing depositions combined with volatilization dominating water/air exchange implies that more HCB areevaporating rom lake waters, a positive trend with respect to the Great Lakes sheries and drinking water. Bycontrast, the lands in the upper Great Lakes ecosystem, namely in northern Ontario where temperatures are lower,are still HCB receptors.

Progress in RemediatingContaminated Sediment

In 2007 1, approximately 960,000 yd 3 o contaminatedsediment were remediated rom eleven U.S. sites and oneCanadian site in the Great Lakes Basin. Remedial actionwas initiated or the rst time in 2007 at three U.S. sites andone Canadian site. Five U.S. sites completed their remedialactions in 2007. Three U.S. sites, each under a di erent

cleanup authority, continued to make progress on theirremedial actions. Highlights o sediment assessment andremediation activities undertaken in the Canadian and U.S.Great Lakes Basin are presented below.

Canadian Update• Bay of Quinte (Trent River)– As part o the ongoing monitoring work to assess sediment quality,

elevated levels o dioxins and urans were ound in sediment at the mouth o the Trent River in 2001. AnEcological Risk Assessment completed in 2007 predicted that there is negligible risk to piscivorous wildli eand sh exposed to the contaminated sediment. As such, monitored natural recovery was chosen as thepre erred management option or this site. Source track down is continuing in the area.

• Wheatley Harbour – An Ecological Risk Assessment undertaken in 2007 concluded that there is negligiblerisk o PCB e ects to piscivorous wildli e in the Muddy Creek wetland. There ore, the Wheatley HarbourImplementation Team recommended that no urther action is required prior to delisting this Area o Concern.

• Niagara River (Lyons Creek, East & West)– Arsenic-contaminated sediment rom Lyons Creek West wasexcavated (300 cubic metres) in the summer o 2007 and placed in a secure land ll acility. Managementoptions are being developed in consultation with various stakeholders to address PCB-contaminatedsediments in Lyons Creek East and Lyons Creek West (the watercourse is bisected by the Welland Canal).

U.S. Update• In 2008, the US EPA’s Research Vessel Mudpuppy assisted in the assessment of ten contaminated sedim

sites in the Great Lakes Basin.

• Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo, Michigan – A Time Critical RemovalAction (TCRA) was implemented in April 2007 by Georgia-Paci c and Millennium Holdings contractorsas a result o agreements negotiated by the two companies along with US EPA Super und, MichiganDepartment o Environmental Quality, and Natural Resource Trustees. Approximately 37,000 yd 3 o PCB-contaminated sediment were dredged rom the Kalamazoo River in a 1.2 mile area near Plainwell, MI.PCB-contaminated sediments were sent to a TSCA permitted disposal acility and solid waste land lls inMichigan.

1 Sediment remediation data or 2007 are presented because data lag a year behind in reporting (i.e., 2008 data will become available in 2009).



• Ashtabula River, Ashtabula, Ohio – The Ashtabula River Great Lakes Legacy Act project was acollaborative e ort between the US EPA and the Ashtabula River Partnership (represented by theAshtabula City Port Authority). In 2007, over 435,000 yd 3 o PCB-contaminated sediment were dredgedutilizing a 12-inch hydraulic cutterhead dredge. Production dredging was ollowed by cleanup dredgingutilizing an 8-inch hydraulic dredge out tted with the Vic Vac® suction system. Dewatered sedimentsremained in geotextile tubes within the TSCA permitted land ll acility constructed as part o theremediation project, and will be covered and capped in 2009.

• Tittabawassee River, Reach D & Reach O, Midland, Michigan – In July 2007, the US EPA and theDow Chemical Company signed two consent orders to address elevated levels o dioxin-contaminatedsediment within the Tittabawassee River. Approximately 12,000 yd 3 o so t bottom deposits wereremoved rom Reach D using a GPS-guided hydraulic dredge system. Sediment was pumped via pipelineto a containment acility or dewatering. Reach O was segregated into ve removal management unitsseparated by sheet piling. Over 16,000 yd 3 o sediment were dry-excavated rom Reach O. All sedimentswere disposed o at Dow’s Salzburg Land ll.

The chart below presents the cumulative volume o sediment remediated in the United States since 1997. USEPA and its partners have now remediated more than 10% o the estimated volume o sediments requiringremediation in the U.S. Great Lakes Basin. The Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act o 2008 was signed into lawon October 8, 2008, thereby extending unding or two years at a level o $54 million per year.

*Volumes in bar graph are quantitative estimates as reported by project managers, summed, and then rounded to the nearest one hundred thousand cubic yards. Data collection and reporting e orts are described in the “Great Lakes Sediment Remediation Project Summary Support” Quality Assurance Project Plan (GLNPO, June 2008). Detailed project in ormation is available upon request rom project managers.Source: US EPA – Great Lakes National Program Ofce.



Photo courtesy o Frank Koshere, Wisconsin Department o Natural Resources

For more in ormation, visit:www.binational.net

Front cover photo credits (top to bottom)Lake Michigan Beach, Leland MI

Photo courtesy o the Michigan Travel Bureau

Lake Guardian DockedPhoto courtesy o US EPA

Niagara Falls, Niagara Falls, NY

Photo courtesy o the Center or Great Lakes and Aquatic SciencesSandhill Crane at Rest

Photo courtesy o Thomas A. Schneider (Michigan Travel Bureau)

Storm rontPhoto courtesy o US EPA

Kayak Paddlers Inside Cave, Lake Superior Pictured Rocks National LakeshorePhoto courtesy o Stan Chladex (Michigan Travel Bureau)

Chicago LighthousePhoto courtesy o US EPA



For more information, contact us:

www.binational.net

Alan Waffle, P. Eng.Head, Great Lakes

Great Lakes SectionEnvironmental Protection Operations DivisionEnvironment Canada

4905 Dufferin StreetToronto, Ontario M3H 5T4CANADA

E-mail: [email protected]

Edwin R. (Ted) SmithPollution Prevention &Toxics Reduction Team Leader

Great Lakes National Program OfficeU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

77 W. Jackson Blvd. (G-17J)Chicago, IL 60604USA

E-mail: [email protected]

Printed on recycled paper with soy ink.

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy December 2008 Status Report

Documents

Transcript of Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy December 2008 Status Report