United Nations

Environment Programme

Chemicals

Proceedings

 

Consultation Meeting on PCB Management and Disposal under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

 

Geneva, Switzerland

9 - 10 June 2004

Organized by
UNEP Chemicals, Geneva

 Published October 2004

 

 

 
   
The consultation meeting was supported by the Swiss Agency for the
Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL)
   

IOMC

INTER-ORGANIZATION PROGRAMME FOR THE SOUND MANAGEMENT OF CHEMICALS

A cooperative agreement among UNEP, ILO, FAO, WHO, UNIDO, UNITAR and OECD

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

1.      Preface

2.      Programme

3.      Proceedings

3.1.    Introduction

3.2.    Session 1:   OPENING

3.3.    Session 2:   INTRODUCTION TO THE MEETING AND TO PCBs AS AN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUE

3.4.    Session 3:   THE LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTION ON PCBs

3.4.1.   Discussion

3.5.    Session 4:   PCB INVENTORIES: PRACTICALITIES AND THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

3.5.1.   Discussion

3.6.    Session 5:   PCB MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

3.6.1.   Discussion

3.7.    Session 6:   TRANSPORTING PCBs

3.7.1.   Discussion

3.8.    Session 7:   DISPOSING OF WASTE PCBs AND PCB-CONTAINING EQUIPMENT

3.8.1.   Discussion

3.9.    Session 8:   REPLACEMENT OF TRANSFORMERS AND OTHER PCB-CONTAINING EQUIPMENT

3.9.1.   Discussion

3.10.  Session 9:   THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM OF THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION AND
          Session 10: THE PCB ACTIVITIES OF THE GEF IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES

3.10.1. Discussion

3.11.  Session 11: THE PCB ACTIVITIES OF THE BILATERAL OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGENCIES

3.11.1. Discussion

3.12.  Session 12: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO PROJECT DESIGN

3.12.1. Discussion

3.13.  Session 13: CONCLUSION

3.13.1. Concluding discussion

3.14.  Completion of evaluation forms and closure of the meeting

Annex 1:              Media Coverage

Annex 2:              Meeting Evaluation

Annex 3:              List of Participants

 

1.      Preface

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which entered into force on 17 May 2004, focuses on eliminating production, use, and trade of POPs and thus reducing their negative impact on human health and the environment.  One obligation under the Convention is for parties to eliminate the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in equipment (e.g. transformers and capacitors) by 2025 and to make determined efforts towards the environmentally sound management of waste PCBs by 2028.

More than 100 countries are currently preparing inventories and action plans for the elimination of PCBs. As implementation work commences, there is likely to be a considerably increased demand for financing and commercial services in relation to management and disposal of PCBs.

From 9 to 10 June 2004, UNEP Chemicals organized, with support from the Swiss Government, a consultation meeting in Geneva to discuss upcoming international needs for PCB management and disposal in the context of the Stockholm Convention.  The aim was to exchange information and improve understanding among various sectors concerned with management and disposal of PCBs and to discuss the international policy framework, logistical issues, technologies, and available capacities in relation to PCB storage, management, transport, and disposal. 

Over 150 persons from a broad range of sectors concerned with the sound management and disposal of PCBs attended the consultation meeting. They included representatives from PCB management and disposal service providers, PCB owners, governments, bilateral and multilateral development cooperation agencies, convention secretariats, financial institutions, and non-governmental organizations.

 

UNEP Chemicals welcomes the strong interest shown in this first PCB consultation meeting and hopes to organize future such events to facilitate continuing dialogue among stakeholders as they address the challenges and opportunities arising from international efforts to phase out PCBs.

 

 

 

James B. Willis

 Director

UNEP Chemicals

 

2.      Programme

 

Wednesday 9 June 2004

0800                        Registration 

0900                        Session 1: Opening

·         Dr Beat Nobs, Chief, International Affairs Division, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape

·         Mr James B. Willis, Director, UNEP Chemicals

·         Mr Cyril Lukeke, Zambian Consolidated Copper Mines

0930                     Session 2: “Introduction to the meeting and to PCBs as an international environment and   health issue”

·         Dr John Buccini, Chairman, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

0945                        Session 3: “The legal and policy framework for international action on PCBs”

·         Mr David Ogden, Executive Coordinator, Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

·         Mr Nelson Sabogal, Deputy Executive Secretary, Secretariat of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal

·         Ms Albena Kardjova, Secretariat for the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution –UN ECE

1045                        Session 4: “PCB inventories: practicalities and the state of knowledge”

·         Mr Mario Abó Balanza, Ministry of Sciences, Technology and Environment, Havana, on Cuba

·         Mr Ueli Schneider, ETI, on Morocco

·         Mrs. Svitlana Sukhorebra, National Center for Hazardous Waste Management, Kiev, on Ukraine

·         Mr Nguyen Minh Cuong, Vietnam Environmental Protection Agency, on Vietnam

·         Dr Felippe de Alencastro, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, on laboratory and field analyses

1230                        Lunch

 

 

1330                        Session 5: “PCB management and planning”

·     Mr Nelson Manda, Environmental Council of Zambia, on Zambia’s PCB management planning

·     Ms Anahit Aleksandryan,  Ministry of Nature Protection, on Armenia’s urgent PCB management needs in light of inventory and monitoring results

·     Mr Jack Weinberg, Environmental Health Fund, on barriers that delay and prevent good disposal and cleanup of historic PCB stocks and wastes

1430                        Session 6: “Transporting PCBs”

·         Mr Ibrahim Shafii, Secretariat of the Basel Convention, on Basel Convention requirements

·         Mr Olivier Kervella, UNECE, on transport of hazardous wastes

·         Mr Pasi Silvennoinen, Ekokem, on shipping obsolete pesticides from Ethiopia to Finland

·         Dr. Christian Reppekus, VVG GmbH & Co KG, on logistics

·         Mr Paul Hayward, Royal and SunAlliance, on insurance aspects

 1600                        Session 7: “Disposing of waste PCBs and PCB-containing equipment”

·         Dr Ron McDowall, International Centre for Sustainability Engineering and Research, University of Auckland, on technology options

·         Ms Pat Costner, Greenpeace, on non-combustion disposal technologies

·         Dr Luciano Gonzalez, Kinectrics, on mobile, non-destructive PCB treatment technologies

·         Dr Christos Eleftheriades, Thermopower, on destruction of PCB oil and PCB oil containing equipment in South Africa

·         Mr Kåre Helge Karstensen, World Business Council for Sustainable Development and European Cement Association (CEMBUREAU), on use of cement kilns for PCB destruction

·         Mr Juri Treger, Scientific Research Institute ("Syntez"), on Russia’s assessment of disposal technologies

·         Dr Ian Rae, University of Melbourne, on contaminated sites

·         Dr Cristina Tumiatti, Sea Marconi, on PCB disposal projects in Cyprus and Italy

1830                        Reception

 

 

 

Thursday 10 June 2004

0900                        Session 8: “Replacement of transformers and other PCB-containing equipment”

·         Mr Michael Müller, Enviro-Consultant, on overall planning for replacement of equipment

·         Mr James Roewer, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, on U.S. utility industry PCB phase-out efforts

·         Mr Sven Schreiber, ABB, on a transformer replacement project for Alcan Inc.

·         Mr Heinz Raithel, Siemens, on GEAFOL cast resin transformers

·         Mr Reiner Streek, SGB, on improving efficiency in industrial distribution grids by replacing PCB transformers in the German automotive industry

·         Mr Dirk Neupert, Envio, on cleaning/retrofilling as an alternative to transformer replacement

1100                        Session 9: “The financial mechanism of the Stockholm Convention”

·         Dr Laurent Granier, GEF Secretariat

1115                        Session 10: “The PCB activities of the GEF Implementing Agencies”

·         Mr Takehiro Nakamura, UNEP

·         Dr Zoltan Csizer, UNIDO

·         Mr Murray Newton, World Bank

1230                        Lunch

1330                     Session 11: “The PCB activities of the bilateral Official Development Assistance agencies”

·         Dr. Nadine Speich, DEZA, Switzerland

·         Dr Matthias Kern, GTZ, Germany

·         Mr Lars Asplund, Swedish EPA

·         Mr Bob Dyer, Arctic Council Action Programme

·         Ms Nicola Lettington, DEFRA, UK

·         Dr John H. Smith, US EPA

·         Dr Cameron Hill, AusAID

·         Mr Jouko Eskelinen, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Finland

 

 

1500                        Session 12: “Innovative approaches to project design”

·         Hon. J. Hugh Faulkner, Sustainable Project Management, on public-private partnerships

·         Mr Alwin Kool, FMO - Netherlands Finance for Development Company (FMO), on partnerships for sustainable investment projects (Tanzania case study)

·         Mr Husamuddin Ahmadzai, Nordic Environment Finance Corporation, on financing a PCB/POPs destruction facility for Northwestern Russia

·         Dr Dariusz Prasek, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, on addressing the PCB issue from an investment point of view

·         Dr Chris Waller, Croplife International, on industry participation in the disposal of obsolete pesticides

1700                        Session 13: Conclusion

·         Dr John Buccini (facilitator) with panel (Mr Nelson Manda, Mr Michael Müller and Mr Ron McDowall)

 

 

 

3.      Proceedings

 

3.1.Introduction

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Chemicals, with support from the Government of Switzerland, held a consultation meeting on PCB Management and Disposal under the Stockholm Convention on 9 and 10 June 2004 at the Geneva International Conference Centre (CICG), Geneva, Switzerland. The meeting addressed the following issues:

(a)                Upcoming international needs for PCB management and disposal in the context of the Stockholm Convention;

(b)                The international policy framework, logistical issues and available capacities in relation to PCB storage, management, transport, and disposal.

Over 150 persons from a broad range of sectors concerned with the sound management and disposal of PCBs attended the consultation meeting, such as representatives from PCB management and disposal service providers, PCB owners, governments, bilateral and multilateral development cooperation agencies, convention secretariats, financial institutions, and non-governmental organizations. A list of the participants can be found in Annex 3. 

The meeting was moderated by Dr. John Buccini

3.2.Session 1: OPENING 

The meeting was opened at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 June 2004, with statements by Mr. Beat Nobs, Chief, International Affairs Division, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape, Mr. James B. Willis, Executive Secretary of the Stockholm Convention, and Mr. Cyril Lukeke, Zambian Consolidated Copper Mine Investments Holdings PLC.

Address by Mr. Beat Nobs, Chief, International Affairs Division, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape

On behalf of the Swiss Government, I would like to welcome you warmly to this consultation meeting on PCB management and disposal under the Stockholm Convention. My special thanks go to UNEP Chemicals for their excellent preparation and organization of this meeting and to all the international experts present and willing to share their experience in PCB management and disposal.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a well-known fact that PCB contamination is a major problem for the environment and for human health. It is for this reason that all three chemicals conventions, the Basel Convention, the Stockholm POPs Convention as well as the Rotterdam PIC Convention have included PCBs under their regulations.

The sustainable management of chemicals and wastes has always been an important priority for Switzerland, not only at the national, but also at the international level. As a leading chemical producer and exporter, we have acquired a great deal of knowledge and experience with chemicals and their possible effects on the environment. I am therefore very pleased that so many international experts representing about 30 governments, 30 intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, development banks as well as 70 companies and industry associations from around the world have been able to participate in this consultation meeting on PCB management and disposal.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the environmental effects of PCBs are, due to the chemical characteristics of these substances, not confined or limited to one country but are a global problem. PCBs are, as UNEP’s executive director Klaus Töpfer phrased it, “travellers without a passport”. This challenge calls for internationally coordinated efforts and cooperation in chemicals management as expressed during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002 and as laid down in the process for the development of a strategic approach to international chemicals management (SAICM). A clear commitment of all countries to the Stockholm POPs, the Rotterdam PIC and the Basel Convention can provide a coherent, unified legal framework, which is indispensable to support environmentally sound management of hazardous chemicals and wastes worldwide. Only the coordinated implementation of all three Conventions can guarantee that all aspects of the life cycle of chemicals such as PCBs are considered and appropriately managed for the sake of human health and the environment.

Indeed, this is a huge challenge, especially for small countries like Switzerland. This is one of the reasons why we try so hard to ensure synergies through co-location of relevant processes and institutions and to avoid a proliferation of processes and venues in the chemicals and waste sector.

UNEP, in its decision taken in Cartagena on 15 February 2002 on the strengthening of international environmental governance has similarly addressed this challenge and the response was clear: in order to ensure coherence and better co-ordination, we must strive to cluster relevant processes.

Ladies and Gentlemen, as you all know, there are three conventions relevant for chemicals and waste policy: the Rotterdam PIC-Convention, the Stockholm POPs-Convention and the Basel Convention on hazardous wastes. While the POPs and the Basel Convention are administered by UNEP, the PIC-Convention is administered jointly by UNEP and FAO. This makes perfect sense, as both institutions are directly involved in the PIC-related work.

The close co-operation between the three conventions has so far been facilitated by the fact that they are all co-located in close proximity in Geneva, with a pesticide PIC-Unit in Rome within FAO. This co-location has so far created synergy and ensured efficient and effective processes. Switzerland hopes that the decisions on the future location of the permanent PIC- and POPs-secretariat will not lead to a proliferation of venues but that the existing cluster will be maintained.

Switzerland has prohibited polychlorinated biphenyls in capacitors and transformers in 1986 in its Ordinance on Substances. The ordinance prohibits supply or import of capacitors and transformers containing PCBs. In the case of appliances in operation, it requires that owners ensure that the appliances carry a warning label and the instruction that authorities are to be informed in the case of leakage or overheating or if the appliance is taken out of operation. Furthermore, owners of capacitors containing PCBs must inform authorities of the location, type, and number of the appliance, the nature and quantity of the pollutant as well as the expected date for taking the appliance out of operation. A transition period of 12 years was granted and thus owners of appliances containing PCBs had to ensure that such appliances were taken out of operation and disposed of by August 31, 1998.

But as you all know, eliminating PCBs from our environment is a rather slow process and surprises may be in store. For example, 50 per cent of buildings erected between 1955 and 1975 in Switzerland contain PCBs in joint sealings. This is the heritage of the widespread usage of PCBs in open systems for example as plasticizers of materials used in construction. As a consequence of these findings, Switzerland has in 2003 issued a new recommendation containing detailed descriptions on sample taking and PCB analysis as well as remediation and protective measures.

With these words let me express my wish that this consultation meeting on PCB Management and Disposal under the Stockholm Convention may be a success for all of us and I am looking forward to many fruitful discussions with you over the next two days.

Address by Mr. James B. Willis, Executive Secretary of the Stockholm Convention

Ladies and Gentlemen, on behalf of UNEP, it is my pleasure to welcome you to this PCB consultation meeting in Geneva.    It is a pleasant surprise to see so many representatives from a broad range of sectors related to PCBs attending this meeting.

 The idea for this meeting arose several months ago, when we  were discuss ing  the intersection of POPs-related activities such as the development of National Implementation Plans under the Stockholm Convention;  PCB inventory projects in Southern Africa, Central America and elsewhere; expected pesticide disposal operations under the Africa Stockpiles Project;  PCB management and disposal capacities that will be needed globally to meet the 2025 and 2028 targets set out in the Stockholm Convention; and the requirements of the Convention to promote and use best available techniques and best environmental practices for some of the technologies that have been used to dispose of PCBs and other wastes.  

It became clear that we needed to start a dialogue involving industries engaged in waste management, countries, donors, NGOs, academics, convention secretariats, and agencies.  We especially wanted to bring together those who will need access to PCB destruction technology with those who are providers of these services.    Our hopes are that this meeting: 

§        helps companies to understand future business opportunities and the requirements of the Stockholm Convention,  the Basel Convention and the UNECE LRTAP POPs protocol; 

§        helps agencies and countries understand the disposal options available and their associated costs. This might also include information related to possible approaches that would reduce or eliminate releases of dioxins and furans, and ensure the environmentally sound management of wastes; 

§        explores some areas beyond just disposal, such as management, storage, transportation, and equipment replacement, and 

§        catalyzes a fast start to  meeting the new PCB obligations under the Stockholm Convention

 

We had originally – and naively – planned for about 50 participants, so it is a  very pleasant development to find over  150 people registered here today. This sort of interest bodes very well for the future success of the Stockholm Convention.

Let me digress and briefly describe UNEP Chemicals. There are three main – and distinct – parts of UNEP Chemicals. The Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention, the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention (a role which is performed jointly with FAO) and a projects and capacity building side, which includes a variety of activities, such as implementing a mercury programme, supporting the implementation of country-based POPs projects, holding awareness raising and training workshops, and supporting to the development of a “strategic approach to international chemicals management " (SAICM).

I won’t detail this work but several of these projects have been relevant to PCBs. Among other things, we have worked with the Secretariats of the Stockholm and Basel Convention to

§        hold awareness raising and training workshops on PCBs for developing countries and countries with economies in transition;

§        issue guidance materials on aspects of PCB management and disposal; and

§        facilitate national PCB inventories in selected countries, and support inventory development as part of Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plans.

In closing, we are delighted to see the range and number of participants in this meeting.  We hope it will be useful to you.

I thank the Government of Switzerland for the assistance that has made the meeting possible and for their generous and sustained support for UNEP’s international chemicals management work.

Best regards for a successful meeting.

Address by Mr. Cyril Lukeke, Zambian Consolidated Copper Mine Investments Holdings PLC

Firstly, on behalf of ZCCM Investments Holdings Plc. (ZCCM-IH), I wish to express my gratitude for this invitation extended by UNEP Chemicals and the Swiss Government to share ZCCM-IH’s experience in the management of PCB wastes to the participants of this PCB consultation meeting.

Prior to 1998, Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd (ZCCM) was the only company carrying out mining and production of copper, cobalt and lead metals on the Copperbelt and Central Provinces of Zambia.

As far back as 1985, ZCCM Ltd Management was well aware and informed of the negative impacts on human health and the environment posed by the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in equipment (e.g. transformers and capacitors). ZCCM Ltd Management issued Safety Code of Conduct to   employees likely to be exposed to PCBs and retained all PCB waste in interim storage to await suitable disposal. In addition, concerted efforts were also taken towards disposal of decommissioned equipment containing PCBs.

With the privatization of the ZCCM Ltd between 1998 to 2000, the Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ), through ZCCM-IH retained liability for a wide range of environmental concerns, which were not passed on to private investors. These included decommissioned equipment containing PCBs and associated wastes. ZCCM-IH is the successor company to ZCCM Ltd in which the GRZ and private investors hold shares.

At the time of ZCCM Ltd.’s privatization, only the inventory of decommissioned capacitors containing PCBs and PCB oil was known.

In February 2002, after several years of attempting to dispose of PCB waste, ZCCM-IH finally awarded a contract to Environmental Technology International (ETI) of Switzerland to conduct site clean-up, removal, transportation and disposal by high temperature incineration of 131 tonnes of PCB wastes at Ekokem OY in Finland.

The cost for this PCB Waste Disposal Project, which was approximately US$ 900,000, was funded through a loan obtained from the World Bank by the GRZ.

ZCCM-IH and Copperbelt Energy Company (CEC), a power company previously owned and operated by ZCCM Ltd., are the only companies to have disposed of PCB waste in Zambia to date.

The PCB Removal Project concluded in early 2003 did not dispose of all the PCB wastes ZCCM-IH was responsible for. Due to financial constraints, approximately 57,000 tonnes of PCB contaminated soils remained in interim storage. Currently, ZCCM-IH is planning a second PCB Disposal Project which will dispose off the PCB contaminated soils which remained from Phase I and the clean up of a contaminated site at an abandoned mine site in Kabwe.

In concluding, the PCB Removal Project undertaken by ZCCM-IH demonstrates the type of collaboration required between industry, government and bilateral development assistance donors in tackling the challenges faced by mostly developing countries and countries with economies in transition, if the obligation under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) of eliminating the use of PCBs in equipment by 2025, and that of environmentally sound management of PCB waste by 2028, is to be realized.

This is the subject that this PCB Consultative meeting will be discussing during today and tomorrow. I look forward to a fruitful discussion. 

3.3.Session 2: INTRODUCTION TO THE MEETING AND TO PCBs AS AN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH ISSUE

Opening address by Dr. John Buccini, Chairman, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants:  “Introduction to the meeting and to PCBs as an international environment and health issue”

PCBs have been widely used in industrial applications since the 1930’s, including as dielectrics in transformers and large capacitors, as heat exchange fluids, as paint additives, in carbonless copy paper and in plastics.  Following the recognition in the 1960’s of the environmental contamination problems that had resulted from these widespread uses of PCBs, decisions were taken to restrict their uses in the 1970’s, at both OECD and national levels, but the manufacture of PCBs continued.  Recognizing that the earlier controls were not adequate, in 1987 OECD countries agreed to ban the manufacture, import, export and sale of PCBs, including products, articles or equipment containing PCBs and equipment which specifically required the use of PCBs, and committed to early phase-out of PCBs in equipment, with accompanying measures to address PCB wastes. 

However, many of the uses of PCBs, such as electrical capacitors and transformers, involved equipment that had a life-span of decades and without a forced phase-out, large amounts of PCBs remained in use and continued to be released during accidents and fires.  Concern about the need to take more aggressive action to phase out PCBs and to stop production in non-OECD countries continued to grow during the 1990’s.  Stronger provisions for PCBs were included during the development of the regional UNECE POPs Protocol in 1998.  Measures were also included for PCBs under the Basel and Rotterdam Conventions and the global Stockholm Convention on POPs, which banned production of PCBs.  However, PCBs continue to pose a risk to human health and the environment and every human in the world carries traces of POPs in his or her body. 

Under the Stockholm Convention, which entered into force in May 2004, a wide array of PCB-containing electrical equipment may remain in service until 2025 and many tonnes of wastes containing or contaminated by PCBs are or will be held at temporary storage sites, particularly in developing countries, pending disposal by 2028.  This PCB phase-out will involve the need for technically, economically and environmentally sound methods for the disposal of PCBs and related wastes.  The overall objective of the meeting was to facilitate implementation of the Stockholm Convention requirements by bringing together the governments that have the responsibility for PCB disposal, donors and funding agencies that can fund disposal activities, the private sector representatives that have the technical means to properly dispose of PCBs, and the pubic interest groups who have a strong interest in ensuring that PCB disposal programs are properly conducted.

The program for the consultation meeting was designed to address the international policy framework, future needs for PCB management and disposal, international financing issues, logistical issues and available capacities for PCB storage, management, transport and disposal.  A report of the proceedings would be prepared by UNEP, and this report would be issue-based in format and would not attribute comments to individuals.

3.4.Session 3: THE LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR INTERNATIONAL ACTION ON PCBs

During session 3, the following  presentations were made:

·      “Introduction to the Stockholm Convention concerning PCBs - Mr. David Ogden, Executive Coordinator of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants;

·     The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal”- Mr. Nelson Sabogal, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Basel Convention;

·     The 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP)- Ms. Albena Kardjova, Secretariat for the UN-ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air  Pollution

3.4.1.      Discussion

One participant, pointing to problems he had encountered in the implementation of a PCB inventory project in China, underlined the importance of cooperation and coordination between the different legal instruments that dealt with PCBs. He asked whether data on the amounts of PCBs in China and on exports and imports of PCBs were available from the Basel Convention. Some participants stressed the current need for recognized international standards with regard to the methodology for assessing contamination, and for destruction levels and destruction technologies. One participant called for a review of the available methodologies for destruction of POPs, not specifically PCBs, since he considered that destruction facilities for POPs in general could enhance efficiency and lead to cost savings.

It was explained that the Basel Convention addressed coordination with the other PCB-related conventions through a series of regional workshops and was committed to working with other international bodies. Export and import data were sent to the Convention Secretariat by national focal points and were available on the Basel Convention website.  The Secretariat was currently preparing guidelines on POPs as wastes, scheduled to be completed in October 2004, and a draft was available, setting out destruction levels, technologies and their efficiency. Participants were invited to submit comments on the draft guidelines to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, for possible incorporation into the final version, which would be considered by the Conferences of the Parties of both the Basel Convention and of the Stockholm Convention.

 The Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention was currently developing guidelines for National Implementation Plans (NIPs), PCB inventories and further steps, which were expected to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention. Inventories of currently existing PCB destruction capacities were available. Whether the Secretariat should develop further, more specific guidance on PCBs would be dependent on a future decision by the Conference of the Parties.  It was noted that developing and transition economy countries who were signatories and non-signatories upon becoming Party to the Stockholm Convention would be eligible for external funding to assist in the preparation of their NIPs.  If a NIP then identified PCBs as a priority area, further funding for that area could be sought.

In answer to a query, it was explained that, while a lot of literature on various PCB uses was available, no continuing production of new PCBs had been identified to date. Although, under the POPs Protocol of the UN-ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, it was possible that countries with economies in transition could be allowed to produce PCBs up to 2005, none had in fact requested to do so.  On a related question, one view held that it was important to distinguish between electrical equipment that was specifically designed to use PCBs, and electrical equipment that could be operated using PCBs. It was considered surprising that companies were still manufacturing the latter type of equipment.

Participants also sought further information and technical clarifications on specific aspects of the legal instruments presented. Concerning the relative roles of the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution and the Stockholm Convention, it was underlined that the UN-ECE Convention was regional in nature, addressing air pollution and with no approach to issues of trade, whereas the Stockholm Convention was global in scope, dealt with the pollution of all media, and did address international trade. Where obligatory standards or levels were seen to vary between the two Conventions, Parties that had adhered to them both were obliged to follow the stricter standards.

 

3.5.Session 4: PCB INVENTORIES: PRACTICALITIES AND THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE

During session 4, the following  presentations were made:

·      Preliminary inventory on PCB: Cuba’s experiences in its elaboration”-  Mr. Mario Abó Balanza, Ministry of Sciences, Technology and Environment of Cuba  - longer written paper

·     PCB inventory in  Morocco” -  Mr. Ueli Schneider, ETI

·     PCB inventory in Ukraine: provisional results and conclusions”- Ms. Svitlana Sukhorebra, National Center for Hazardous Waste Management, Kiev

·     PCB inventory in Viet Nam: practicalities and challenges”-  Mr. Nguyen Minh Cuong, Environmental Protection Agency of Viet Nam

·     Laboratory and field analyses”- Dr. Felippe de Alencastro, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

 

3.5.1.      Discussion

Several participants, noting that much equipment did not indicate whether PCB contamination might be present or not, highlighted the crucial question of sampling and analysis, which in a number of countries was hampered by lack of technical and financial capacities, and was rendered especially difficult where equipment was still in use. Concerning how to differentiate between PCB and non-PCB equipment and how to asses the levels of contamination, participants suggested that: the equipment labelling should be used, as well as the date of manufacture, to assess possible presence of PCB; some capacitor information, available on the Internet (e.g. the Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (AZECC) information booklet on “Identification of PCB–Containing Capacitors” at: http://www.deh.gov.au/industry/chemicals/scheduled-waste/pcbs/pcbid.html), could be consulted for PCB content data; similar, off-line equipment could be analysed and the results applied; and the manufacturer could be contacted for details of the equipment supplied to the country. However, it was also cautioned that such information could be unreliable, since subsequent maintenance might still have caused PCB contamination.

 While one participant considered that costs could be reduced by the preliminary use of a screening kit to test for possible PCBs, followed by a more detailed analysis where necessary, another believed that where thousands of samples had to be pre-screened, resources could be more efficiently invested in setting up better equipment for analysis in the first place. Another view held that testing should be carried out in the laboratory, not in the field. Samples could be sent all round the world to testing centres with proven specialist equipment and techniques.

Attention was drawn to the need to establish with some certainty the amounts of PCBs in a country, in order to eventually draw up a national action plan for the implementation of the Stockholm Convention. One participant considered that the 2-3 months allowed to prepare a preliminary inventory of PCBs was totally inadequate, given the magnitude of the task. However, other participants explained that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee had endorsed the UNEP guidance for the preparation of inventories in time for a country’s NIP, but it was not expected that those first inventories would be comprehensive. Rather, the NIP would give an overview of the current situation and the further steps a country might plan to take. The situation was similar to that of inventorying obsolete pesticides. The preparation of an inventory would involve an ongoing multi-stage process, to enable an estimate of the extent of the problem, facilitate the identification of funding and phase-out priorities, and provide a tracking mechanism to account for equipment and wastes until their disposal. Budgets could be revised as and when a more complete picture emerged.

Some participants, noting that the figures provided by the PCB inventory would not be accurate, pointed to the importance of a methodology for conducting the inventory in order to identify where something might be missing. For example, experts could also prepare a commentary on what they were not able to inventory and on gaps in the work. The inventorying was an enabling activity, so that countries could continue the process as they moved towards compliance. Moreover, as time progressed, any phase-out activities would, in turn, modify the inventory.

In the course of the discussion, participants also sought and received further specific information on the legislation and facilities for dealing with PCBs in the countries presented, and on the availability of their data on what had been inventoried to date. It was explained that UNEP-Chemicals had also supported the conducting of a number of projects to inventory PCBs and, following approval by the country and donor involved, it was expected that the results of the projects would be published at the end of the year.

 

 

3.6.Session 5: PCB MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

During session 5, the following  presentations were made:

·     Planning and management for PCBs in Zambia” - Mr. Nelson  Manda, Environmental Council of Zambia*

·     Armenia’s urgent PCB management need,  in light of the results of  inventorying and monitoring” - Ms. Anahit Aleksandryan, Ministry of Nature Protection

·      “Presence of non-technological/non-market barriers - Mr. Jack Weinberg, Environmental Health Fund

* Mr. Cyril Lukeke from the Zambian Consolidated Copper Mine Investments Holdings (ZCCM-IH) PLC made available an additional written paper on “Management of equipment containing PCBs in ZCCM-IH

 

3.6.1.      Discussion

One participant, noting that PCB stocks had been identified and that funds, technologies and capacities to initiate phase-out activities were available, asked why action had not yet been taken to that end. What were we waiting for? In reply, several participants pointed to the complexity of the problem. The Convention required countries to prepare their NIP within two years of its entry into force. Once the NIP was in place, they could move on to seek funding for PCB management and destruction activities. In some countries, previous work had allowed a better picture of the PCB situation and they might already be able to develop proposals. However, it was cautioned that a country needed to be very confident in the finality of its domestic assessment before it sought funding for activities under the Convention, since there might not be a second chance. While some countries had benefited from demonstration projects, those projects had been purely to show the performance of the technology concerned, and had not been intended as PCB phase-out activities per se.

Some participants noted that, although for seven years Australia had had no government legislation on the subject, PCBs had still been phased out and destroyed. That was due in large measure to trade union and civil society pressure. In addition, civil society had forced a rethink on incineration, which explained why the country had opted for alternative technological solutions to address PCBs. Industry had also welcomed and helped to establish limits on PCBs. It was observed that, to some extent industry had been able to predict that future PCB regulation would occur, and had started to offset any possible problems or liability issues with respect to PCBs by taking action at an early stage. Other participants, while praising Australia’s leadership on the subject, considered that many countries, particularly developing countries that were facing a number of other problems, did in fact need to have a legal and regulatory framework in place to ensure the phasing out of PCBs.

3.7.Session 6: TRANSPORTING PCBs

During session 6, the following  presentations were made:

·      Notification  procedures for the export and import of hazardous and other wastes under the Basel Convention” - Mr. Ibrahim Shafi, Secretariat of the Basel Convention

·     Regulations for the transport of PCBs” - Mr. Olivier Kervella, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Annex

·     Shipping obsolete pesticides from Ethiopia to Finland” - Mr. Pasi Silvennoinen, Ekokem - longer written paper

·     Logistics of PCB-contaminated waste” - Dr. Christian Reppekus, VVG GmbH & Co KG - longer written paper

·     Insurance aspects of transporting dangerous goods” - Mr. Paul Hayward, Royal and Sun Alliance

 

3.7.1.      Discussion

One participant considered that, rather than having large amounts of hazardous substances transported all over the globe, there was a need for a cost-benefit analysis of regional PCB disposal centres. Other participants pointed out that the costs of establishment of such centres would have to be weighed against the costs and risks of transportation. From an insurance perspective, the shorter the distance of transportation, the better. But, apart from their capital costs, fixed facilities and plants also had to be insured. A risk assessment of such facilities would have to be carried out, particularly with regard to problems of incorrect storage of hazardous substances. One participant stressed that a number of developing countries lacked proper storage facilities for dangerous substances, and faced constant problems of leakage and spillage. They would require capacity-building to set up and manage such facilities without risk.

It was observed that many studies of transportation of dangerous goods had produced no evidence that any single mode of transport was safer than any other. However, the important thing was to ensure that the transport regulations were fully complied with. It was clear that the risk of accidents was linked to the level of operator skills. One participant considered that resources were necessary to enhance driver training in some regions. In addition, training of customs officials in the procedures for import and export of hazardous substances should be enhanced. In that context, it was recalled that the Basel Convention regional centres had organized training workshops for customs officers. Countries were free to request that their respective regional centre for the Basel Convention should provide such training workshops.

Some participants considered that governments could simplify the notification procedure for transboundary movements of hazardous substances by setting out clear guidelines on the procedures required. That would serve assist the planning of the routing of such substances, avoiding the need to transit a number of other countries and expediting the application process. Industry would also benefit from streamlined notification procedures.

With regard to methods and technologies for disposal, it was recalled that the Stockholm Convention did not specify those which were to be adopted by Parties. Neither had the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention taken any decision on which technologies should be applied for disposal. Relevant guidelines were currently being finalized and would be considered by the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention in 2004, and by the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention in 2005. One participant, pointing to the examples described in the presentations just made, considered that the term “disposal” should be avoided, and preferred the more specific terms “long-term contained storage” or “destruction” of PCBs.

On the issue of illegal traffic in PCBs and other POPs, it was recalled that, where countries observed such activities, they could bring them to the attention of the Compliance Committee under the Basel Convention.

3.8.Session 7: DISPOSING OF WASTE PCBs AND PCB-CONTAINING EQUIPMENT

During session 7, the following  presentations were made:

·      Technology options” - Dr. Ron McDowall, International Centre for Sustainability, Engineering and Research, University of Auckland, New Zealand

·     Non-combustion technologies for the disposal of PCBs and other POPs wastes: civil society, international conventions and technological choices”-  Ms. Pat Costner, Greenpeace - longer written paper

·     Mobile, non-destructive PCB treatment technologies” - Dr. Luciano Gonzalez, Kinectrics

·     Destruction of PCB oil and PCB oil-containing equipment in South Africa” - Dr. Christos Eleftheriades, Thermopower  - longer written paper

·     Use of cement kilns for PCB destruction” - Mr. Kåre Helge Karstensen, World Business Council for Sustainable Development and European Cement Association (CEMBUREAU)

·     Russia’s assessment of disposal technologies” - Mr. Juri Treger, Scientific Research Institute, Synetz

·     PCBs and contaminated soil” - Dr. Ian Rae, University of Melbourne

·     Oil, PCBs and POPs: the inventory, management and decontamination in electrical networks” - Dr. Vander Tumiatti, Sea Marconi

 

3.8.1.      Discussion

A number of participants sought and obtained from the presenters further technical and financial information on the decontamination processes they had described, as well as on the specific permits required for operations in different geographical regions and locations. It was noted that, when mobile plants were used to rehabilitate equipment that was still in service and which still had a working life, the authorities in many localities considered that procedure to be classified as maintenance. The decontamination procedure at the end of a piece of equipment’s life was classified differently.

Concerning disposal in cement kilns, one participant cited a study in Denmark, which had found dioxin in clinker and had observed that cement kiln dust was not recycled to the process, as was desirable, but rather to the product. In addition, in Europe 30 per cent of cement kiln dust ended up as landfill. Another participant took issue with those assertions.

Concerning incineration, one participant considered that, although modern incinerators produced very low emissions of dioxins and difurans, even with BAT/BEP the emissions were continuous and, over time, those substances did accumulate in the environment. Some other participants questioned the validity of those assertions, explaining that, in some countries in Europe at least, there was continuous sampling of everything that could be measured in the emissions, and results were available on the Internet. Another observed that the monitoring of incinerators and their emissions varied by government and by region. One other participant, citing a study on a German PCB incinerator, which revealed increased levels of PCBs in the blood of 7 to 10-year olds, wondered whether the incineration was being properly managed, or whether the equipment was not reaching the reported destruction efficiency level. Yet another pointed out that it was not just the atmospheric emissions that had to be monitored, but also the residues. In answer to a query, it was explained that dedicated hospital incinerators were unsuitable for destruction of PCBs, often due to their size, but mainly due to the insufficient residence time at the required temperature.

It was noted that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol for the Protection of the Ozone Layer had examined technologies for the destruction of ozone-depleting substances, as well as their costs and efficiency. It was suggested that it might be valuable to look at the methodology used by the Assessment Panel, to see how that might parallel the situation concerning PCB destruction.

In addressing the question of how countries could chose from among the more than 100 technologies available for PCB disposal, participants considered that the question entailed a number of factors, not least of which was the volume and type of material to be handled. In some parts of the world, such as Europe,there was sufficient, cost-effective incineration capacity to handle large volumes of material. One view held that, for that reason, in Europe there had been little incentive to find alternative, non-combustion-based technologies for disposal. However, In many developing countries high-temperature incineration, where available, entailed higher costs and different regulations. The view was expressed that, for a developing country, the main question in considering the construction of a new facility for disposal was the capacity for utilization, since only full capacity utilization over a number of years would make a plant cost-effective. Also for that reason, a new destruction facility should not be too specialized, but should be able to handle various types of material. It was noted that non-combustion technologies were not automatically a good solution. It was necessary to look at the data to see whether such technologies were cost-effective, safe, free from toxic by-products, and did the right job. In the final analysis, it was clear that, on the basis of the knowledge it had gained about its own situation, and taking all the other factors into account, each country had to find its own solution to the question of technology choice.

It was explained that the process of preparing guidelines on BAT/BEP and technology choice was under way and a finalized version would be submitted to the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention, in 2004, and to the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention, in 2005.

On the question of regional disposal centres for dangerous substances, it was observed that, for a number of reasons, a government might be reluctant to a major facility to be located on its territory. However, a regional approach to disposal of PCBs might be particularly applicable in Europe, where the more developed members of the European Union could constructively share their capacities, technologies and experience in dealing with POPs with the newer members of the Union.

3.9.Session 8: REPLACEMENT OF TRANSFORMERS AND OTHER PCB-CONTAINING EQUIPMENT 

During session 8, the following  presentations were made:

·      Overall planning for replacement of equipment” - Mr. Michael Müller, Enviro-consultant

·     U.S. utility industry PCB phase-out efforts” - Mr. James Roewer, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

·     Transformer replacement project for Alcan Inc.”- Mr. Sven Schreiber, ABB - longer written paper

·     GEAFOL cast resin transformers”- Mr. Heinz Raithel, Siemens

·     “Improving efficiency in industrial distribution grids by replacing PCB transformers”- Mr. Reiner Streek, SGB

·     Cleaning/retrofilling as an alternative to transformer replacement” - Mr. Dirk Neupert, Envio - longer written paper

 

3.9.1.      Discussion

Participants from developing countries drew attention to the need to track PCB-containing transformers and capacitors that were withdrawn from service in the developed countries, in order to ensure that those destined for scrapping were not resold to the developing countries, as had happened in the past. There had to be a clear delineation between electrical equipment destined for scrap and equipment that was considered re-usable. It was recalled that, under the provisions of the Stockholm Convention, it was illegal to move PCBs between Parties for continued use; PCBs could only be moved for the purpose of environmentally sound disposal. Some participants considered that the companies providing PCB decontamination services also had to be made accountable for the PCB content of the equipment that they had treated, perhaps by means of labelling or certification, guaranteeing the PCB level. In addition, owners of used electrical equipment had to be committed to the use of reputable rehabilitation or scrapping companies.

Participants acknowledged that, while such measures could help to combat the trade in used PCB-containing equipment, a number of factors made it extremely difficult to eliminate such illegal trade. For example: some countries imported huge amounts of materials classified as “scrap”, in which it was easy to conceal PCBs; and, in a number of countries, customs officials lacked sufficient training to recognize whether equipment contained illegal levels of PCBs. Several participants called for capacity-building to train customs authorities, with UNEP or GEF support. It was noted that a country could express a priority need for such capacity-building in its NIP. One participant considered that, if the trade in used transformers and capacitors could not be controlled, then it might be easier to ban it altogether. Another participant said that one possible method of control would be to authorize transformers for rehabilitation only if they were intended to remain in service, and not as a cost-saving means of then scrapping them as “PCB-free” equipment.   

Participants discussed at length the different standards used for defining PCB contamination and the problems posed by the lack of a harmonized definition of the term “PCB-free”, which allowed for different maximum concentrations of PCB contamination according to the region, and sometimes according to the nature of the contaminated medium. One participant considered that the analytical methods used for measuring PCB content were also not standardized. It was felt that the provisions of the Stockholm Convention on the subject should be clarified and that a common understanding of the term “PCB-free” should be developed. That could be an issue for the attention of the upcoming Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention.

Participants debated the cost-benefit considerations of whether to decontaminate and re-use old equipment, or whether to replace it by new, non-PCB equipment. Rehabilitation was cheaper in the short term and, although a transformer was not rendered completely PCB-free, it could continue to operate legally for a number of years. New, non-PCB transformers, while requiring much higher short-term financial outlays, offered not only a direct phase-out of PCB equipment, but also had distinct safety advantages and could thus be located much closer to the source of consumption. Such new transformers offered savings in terms of space considerations, since the equipment could be located above or beside other machinery and near to where people were working, and it provided an opportunity to rethink the entire power supply system within a company, which could bring considerable savings in consumption in the longer term.

In response to a query about whether manufacturers were prepared to take back high-PCB content transformers which they had earlier supplied to developing countries, it was recalled that, formerly, some manufacturers had accepted obsolete transformers in part-exchange for the acquisition of new, non-PCB equipment. That was not currently known to be the case. Participants discussed the relative merits of arranging for a single company to handle the removal and disposal of old transformers and the supply and installation of new equipment. One view held that such a course of action offered financial advantages and logistical gains, due to the synergies that could be generated by having one party take responsibility for the entire project. Another view held that, while that might be true for the smaller-scale transformer replacement projects, for large-scale projects no particular advantage accrued from having one party manage the entire process.

During the discussion, participants sought and obtained additional information and clarification from the presenters on the products and processes they had described. In answer to a query, it was explained that, while the United States Utility Industry had targeted the phase-out of PCBs, other industries in the country had been less aggressive in their phase-out strategies and actions.

3.10.       Session 9: THE FINANCIAL MECHANISM OF THE STOCKHOLM CONVENTION AND Session 10: THE PCB ACTIVITIES OF THE GEF IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES

During session 9 and 10, the following  presentations were made:

·      The financial mechanism of the Stockholm Convention - Mr. Laurent Granier, GEF Secretariat

·     A partner in the Global Environment Facility: PCBs in UNEP/POPs activities - Mr. Takehiro Nakamura, DGEF UNEP

·     Dr. Zoltan Csizer, UNIDO - Presentation

·     Current World Bank projects and activities on PCBs” - Mr. Murray Newton, World Bank

 

3.10.1.  Discussion

Participants sought and received further information and clarification on specific points of the presentations made, and raised the following general points: whether the implementing agencies were, or intended to be, involved in specific other projects; the variation in costs of PCB disposal through incineration in the different regions of the world; how firms could approach the implementing agencies with a view to tendering for project work; and the strong possibility that data provided by a preliminary inventory would not be final.

With regard to specific projects noted in the presentations, in answer to a question, it was explained that the UNEP capacity-building activity for laboratories was a global programme, undertaken with UNEP-Chemicals, and targeting primarily the chemicals covered under the Stockholm Convention. Countries were in the process of being identified for the pilot phase of the project, which would focus on the assessment of existing laboratory capacities and experience in the financing of laboratories in developing countries. Concerning long-term storage of PCBs in stone coffins, as reported by the World Bank, one participant reported that he had viewed the coffins at a location in China, and had determined that the liners were being chemically attacked and were becoming brittle, permitting the PCBs to migrate out of the coffins.  

3.11.       Session 11: THE PCB ACTIVITIES OF THE BILATERAL OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AGENCIES

During session 10, the following  presentations were made:

·     Dr. Nadine Speich, DEZA, Switzerland (the presentation is not available).

·     Inventory of PCB transformers”- Dr. Matthias Kern, GTZ, Germany

·     PCBs: the Swedish case” - Mr. Lars Asplund, Swedish EPA

·     Reduction of PCB releases in the Russian Federation” - Mr. Bob Dyer, Arctic Council Action Programme

·     United Kingdom implementation of the Stockholm Convention” - Ms. Nicola Lettington, DEFRA, United Kingdom

·     US EPA and POPs PCBs - Dr. John H. Smith, U.S. EPA

·     Australia’s persistent organic pollutants in Pacific island countries Project- Phase II” - Dr. Cameron Hill, AusAID, and Ms. Alison Baker, GHD PTY LTD

·     The PCB-related activities of Finnish bilateral assistance” - Mr. Jouko Eskelinen, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland

 

3.11.1.  Discussion

Participants asked presenters about their global activities to support the developing countries and, in one case, about the possibility that a particular large developed country would sign the Basel Convention in the foreseeable future.

3.12.       Session 12: INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO PROJECT DESIGN

During session 11, the following presentations were made:

·      Innovative partnerships for sustainable development” - The Hon. J. Hugh Faulkner, Sustainable Project Management

·     Addressing the PCB issue from an investment point of view” - Dr. Dariusz Prasek, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

·     NEFCO’s financing of  a multilateral destruction facility in the Russian Federation” - Mr. Husammudin Ahmadzai, Nordic Environment Finance Corporation

·     The Mtwara case: a development bank’s perspective” - Presentation  by Mr. Alwin Kool

·     Industry participation in the disposal of obsolete pesticides” - Dr. Chris Waller, Croplife International

An additional written paper was made available by Mr. Rajendra Shende, Energy and OzonAction Unit, DTIE UNEP, Paris onUseful lessons from ODS phase out for PCB-phase out

 

3.12.1.  Discussion

In the discussion on the destruction of obsolete pesticide stockpiles in Africa, it was explained that stocks had been completely destroyed in Cape Verde, Gambia, Mauritania and Senegal. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations was currently clearing stockpiles in Seychelles, Yemen and Zambia. While dinitro-ortho-cresol (DNOC) from a country had been incinerated in a cement kiln within the country itself, which posed no problems involving chlorine, dedicated facilities for the safe destruction of pesticides did not exist in Africa. The possibility of establishing such a plant had been considered, but it was difficult to justify such a facility. Mobile decontamination plants, such as those described in earlier sessions, had national permits to deal with specific situations, but under the African Stockpiles Project all disposal activities would be put out to tender. 

A note of caution was sounded concerning the comparability of the situation of obsolete pesticides and PCBs. One participant believed that the problem of PCBs could turn out to be far more complex than expected, and focusing simply on the GEF might not provide all the solutions. Some participants wondered whether the countries that had originally produced the PCBs could be asked to assist in their disposal. Just as the pesticide industry had reacted in the case of obsolete products, it might be possible to parallel that process and encourage the PCB producers to undertake pro-active work. Participants reported that, to date, despite appeals and even legal action, no responsibility for PCB clean-up had been assumed by the manufacturers.

Participants discussed the case of the Mtwara project, where the Government had handed the site over to the private sector, which subsequently refused to assume responsibility for the existing PCB contamination on the premises. The development bank FMO followed the International Finance Corporation (IFC) guidelines on how to deal with PCBs, and asked clients to also follow those guidelines. However, it had no leverage with the new owners of the Mtwara site, since the link to the original sponsor had been broken.

 One participant pointed to the potential “chicken and egg situation”, whereby projects seeking GEF funding first had to demonstrate the availability of co-financing, which could often only be obtained on the basis of evidence of GEF interest in the project. In reply it was explained that the first round of the procedures for obtaining GEF support was time-consuming. However, once the framework had been established things were much easier.  The GEF could be creative, as had been illustrated by past projects. For example, it had been possible to obtain co-financing from the municipalities. The main requirement was that the host Government endorse the project, even though it could be implemented at the local level.  One participant considered that his national Government had little interest in the hands-on task of dealing with PCBs, but relied upon the participation of industry. Resources were provided by both of those parties, but if the GEF could also be brought on board, then the situation for dealing with PCBs would be “perfect”.

Concerning the involvement of the private sector in the PCB issue, participants pointed to examples in many parts of the world, including private-sector cooperation in Russian Federation, whereby understandings had been agreed with the suppliers and users of transformers, and a UNIDO project in Slovakia, in which a private company retained liability for 1,000 tonnes of PCB waste on site as part of the project. It was noted that some projects would only work if there were substantial cooperation with and involvement of the private sector.

 

Attention was drawn to the question of responsibility for military uses and stocks of PCBs. In a number of countries, the national military were considered as part of the government, and their PCBs thus became their responsibility and had to be included in the national inventory. However, the situation concerning PCB contamination of a former foreign military site on a country’s territory was more complex.   One participant also highlighted the problems raised by ship-breaking in some countries, which resulted in the open release and dumping of large, often unquantifiable, amounts of PCBs from obsolete ship-board electrical equipment.

In answer to a query, it was clarified that a PCB destruction facility already existed in the north of the Russian Federation, and it had destroyed 130 tonnes of PCBs in the past year. In answer to a query about how the financing of mixed up stocks of pesticides and POPs could proceed, since in such cases it was impossible to sort out POPs and non-POPs, it was explained that the GEF usually picked up part of the bill for the disposal of messed-up stocks of chemicals, with co-financing from the donors.

3.13.       Session 13: CONCLUSION

For the conclusion session, the moderator, John Buccini, was joined by a panel comprising Dr. Ron McDowall, Mr. Nelson Manda and Mr. Michael Müller.

Dr. Ron McDowall 

In his concluding remarks, panel member Dr. McDowall said that the discussion in the meeting had made him concerned about just what stage countries had reached on the issue of PCBs. Many questions had been raised concerning what technology to use for disposal, and they had revealed that no inventory analysis had been undertaken in countries. Selection of a technology was several steps along the multi-step process for dealing with PCBs. First came inventorying and data collection; then analysis of the inventory, to show types of products, volumes, concentration levels, etc.; then came the formulation of strategies; then the rationalization of the list of priorities; only then, came choice of technology.

Participants had spoken extensively about contaminated oils, but out in the world there were huge boneyards of dumped transformers and rusting drums of PCB-contaminated waste. Retrofilling of usable equipment and systems with life left in them was all very well, but it was necessary to pay urgent attention to the material that had been withdrawn from service.  He recommended to participants the Training Manual for Hazardous Waste Project Managers, published in October 2002 by the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, Volume A, entitled “Destruction and decontamination technologies for PCB and other POPs wastes” (ISBN 92-1-158611-9), which set out a comprehensive approach to dealing with PCBs.

Mr. Nelson Manda

Panel member Mr. Manda highlighted the diversity and difficulty of the problems encountered in preparing an inventory of PCBs, and expressed concern about whether countries would find the results helpful in preparing their NIPs. Moreover, countries also faced time and resource constraints.  The question arose: did countries need guidelines for the preparation of their PCB inventories, or should the methodology be left up to the country itself? Not much had been said about how those with experience could assist countries in preparing their inventories. In addition, the situation was different in each country. Some might need 6 months and some larger countries might need much more time to complete their inventory. In any case, it had been recognized that a good inventory would determine the next sequence of steps to be taken:

The PCB problems could be more complex than those posed by stocks of obsolete pesticides. Many participants had spoken of the need for a strategic approach and for partnerships. The presentations on innovative approaches to project design had shown that financial institutions could also play a valuable part. Now was the time for concrete actions. Perhaps UNEP or the other implementing agencies could arrange for case studies to be carried out, so as to leverage further work on PCBs so that more time was not lost. 

Mr. Michael Müller

In his closing address, panel member Mr. Müller spoke of his experience in project execution, stressing the importance of a clear understanding by all parties involved in the project, the setting of fixed responsibilities, and a clear commitment to the sustainability of the project. He believed that the transportation of PCB-contaminated material presented problems. It was no longer feasible to transport huge amounts of material around the world for decontamination or disposal. There had to be the possibility of doing something on-site or using mobile facilities. Participants had addressed the issues of notifications, insurance, reliability of transportation partners, packaging and the challenges of training customs authorities. Now what was needed was the next step in the process, towards concrete action.  

3.13.1.  Concluding discussion

Participants considered that countries should not wait until their inventories of PCBs were perfect, but should take advantage of the current availability of bilateral and other assistance and proceed to concrete action, particularly now that the Stockholm Convention was in force. The amount of work to be undertaken increased the responsibility of UNEP in moving forward with cooperating partners, in order to implement capacity-building programmes. In particular, the different institutions needed to start working together to develop concrete actions. The PCB problem could no longer be pushed into the future.  It was necessary to try new approaches, to go beyond demonstration projects, for example by selecting a group of 15 or so countries to start early work on PCBs.  Noting that the primary objective of the Stockholm Convention was to safeguard human and environmental health, some participants highlighted the need to introduce an element of risk analysis within the inventorying process. In addition to noting the physical presence of each piece of electrical equipment that might contain PCBs, the experts could at the same time assess its condition, its location within the environment and the possible dangers it might present.  In that way, different categories of risk could also be identified.

One participant believed that, while the enabling activities for POPs had involved work by teams of highly qualified specialists, they had tended to operate outside of the government and the national institutions.  Capacity-building activities for government institutions should be an important part of the NIP. Participants from developing countries also pointed to the need for capacity-building to raise the awareness of the general public and, in particular, of the technicians working within their utility companies, many of whom were totally unaware of the hazards posed by PCBs. In Africa, cases of misuse of PCB-contaminated transformer oils had been recorded. Involving utility technicians in the inventory process would not only increase their knowledge. It would also serve to make the entire process sustainable.

It was stressed that, in many developing countries, continued cross-contamination of electrical equipment was unavoidable, since those countries had no money for safe and expensive maintenance. Transformer oils, filters and pumps all had to be re-used. On-site conditions were sub-standard and unsafe, and equipment that the developed countries would consider fit for scrapping was often repaired and put back into service in the developing countries, since they had to choose the cheapest solutions. .   

Participants from developing countries further pointed to the need for capacity-building to ensure that PCB-contaminated wastes could be securely stored in those countries, until such time as they could be safely disposed of. Such disposal was very expensive and was not likely to occur in the near future, so interim measures were needed to safeguard scrapped equipment. Whenever such equipment was left lying around in open-air sites, as was the norm in many developing countries, there was spillage and contamination of the soil and the surrounding environment, which only increased the magnitude of the disposal problem the country had to face in the future. 

It was observed that many countries, particularly the developing countries, could not understand why the manufacturers of PCBs and equipment containing PCBs had no role to play in the current process of tackling PCB issues, a process that entailed huge costs for countries. One participant suggested that some kind of mechanism was needed to invoke responsibility on the part of the producers, since if they did not learn to accept accountability on this issue, there was nothing to stop them denying responsibility for future problems that might arise from other products and processes, which they were currently marketing. However, another view held that it was unfair to lay the blame for PCB problems on the producers. In the past, in their orders for electrical equipment, customers had deliberately asked for PCB transformers, because they were considered safer and less flammable. Only now had the world learned its lesson.

Concerning destruction technologies, participants observed that a lot of so-called new methods and processes had in fact been around for a long time. Some technologies emerged more slowly than others. One view held that, in considering destruction technologies, it was dangerous to consider PCBs in isolation. Focusing solely on one waste stream would give false answers to the question of the sustainability of the process. One participant considered that PCBs were not the right material on which to try out new and experimental treatment methods, especially when there were well-known and well-established processes available.

With regard to the conduct of the meeting itself, one participant considered that future meetings on PCBs should be attended by more representatives of the utilities companies, since they had a lot of experience in buying, maintaining and phasing out transformers and other electrical equipment containing PCBs.

3.14.       Completion of evaluation forms and closure of the meeting

To enable the Secretariat to streamline the process for conducting future meetings, participants were requested to complete an evaluation form. The results of the meeting evaluation can be found in Annex 2.

After the customary exchange of courtesies, the meeting closed at 5.45 p.m. on Thursday, 10 June 2004.


 

Annex 1: Media Coverage

 

UNEP Press Release

 

Global clean-up of toxic PCBs

Geneva, 10 June 2004 – Governments, donor agencies and commercial firms from around the world are meeting here for two days to promote international efforts to rid the world of PCBs, one of 12 highly toxic chemicals targeted for elimination by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are a class of synthetic organic chemicals that are amongst the most widespread of all environmental pollutants, found worldwide in air, water, soil, food – and the fatty tissues of humans and animals.

“The financial and technical challenges of eliminating PCBs from the planet will require a vigorous partnership between the public and private sectors,” said Executive Director Klaus Toepfer of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), under whose auspices the Stockholm Convention was adopted.

“While international donors and national governments will set priorities and invest tens of millions of dollars, commercial firms have the expertise and technologies to perform much of the actual clean-up work,” he said.

Due to their low flammability, PCBs have been used extensively in electrical equipment such as transformers and large capacitors used in power lines and major facilities. They have also been used as additives in paint, carbonless copy paper, and plastics.

Many hundreds of thousands of tonnes of PCBs have been commercially manufactured since 1929. Annual world production peaked in the late 1960s at close to 60,000 tonnes.

Although production is now banned under the Convention, PCBs continue to pose a risk to human health and the environment because of the wide array of PCB-containing electrical equipment still in service. Tonnes of wastes containing or contaminated by PCBs are also being held at temporary storage sites, particularly in developing countries.

In addition, large quantities of PCBs have been discharged into soils, rivers and lakes over the years. Further releases continue to result due to accidents, the repair and decommissioning of equipment, the demolition of buildings and the continued existence of imperfectly sealed landfills and waste drums.

The Convention, which entered into force on 17 May 2004, gives governments until 2025 to phase out “in-place equipment” containing PCBs, as long as the equipment is maintained in a way that prevents leaks. It also grants another three years to ensure the environmentally sound management of PCB-contaminated wastes.

The Convention recognizes that, for economic and practical reasons, it will take some time to completely eliminate PCBs. Equipment containing PCBs is dispersed widely across the countryside, notably along electric power-line grids. Replacing all of this equipment immediately would be impractical and expensive, especially for financially strapped developing countries.

With the Convention now in force, it is widely recognized that the need for financing and commercial services for destroying PCBs will expand dramatically. The 9-10 June meeting, which is sponsored by UNEP and financed by the Government of Switzerland, offers donors and PCB-related industries the opportunity to discuss upcoming needs for PCB management and disposal, the international policy framework, logistical issues and available capacities for PCB storage, management, transport and disposal.

The Global Environment Facility serves as the financial mechanism for the Convention on an interim basis and will be responsible for channelling much of the international funding for finding and destroying PCBs.

Large numbers of people have been exposed to PCBs through food contamination. Consumption of PCB-contaminated rice oil in Japan in 1968 and in Taiwan in 1979 caused pigmentation of nails and mucous membranes and swelling of the eyelids, along with fatigue, nausea, and vomiting.

Due to the persistence of PCBs in their mothers' bodies, children born up to seven years after the Taiwan incident showed developmental delays and behavioral problems. Similarly, children of mothers who ate large amounts of contaminated fish from Lake Michigan showed poorer short-term memory function. PCBs also suppress the human immune system and are listed as probable human carcinogens.

PCBs are also toxic to fish, killing them at higher doses and causing spawning failures at lower doses. Research also links PCBs to reproductive failure and suppression of the immune system in various wild animals, such as seals and mink.

Every human in the world carries traces of POPs in his or her body. POPs are highly stable compounds that can last for years or decades before breaking down. They circulate globally through a process known as the "grasshopper effect". POPs released in one part of the world can, through a repeated process of evaporation and deposit, be transported through the atmosphere to regions far away from the original source.

Note to journalists: For additional information, please contact Eric Falt, UNEP Spokesperson, at +254 20 623292, Mobile: +254 (0) 733 682656, or eric.falt@unep.org; Nick Nuttall, UNEP Head of Media at +254 20 623084, Mobile: +254 733 632755, or nick.nuttall@unep.org, or Michael Williams at +41-22-917 8242, +41-79-409 1528 (cell) or michael.williams@unep.ch. See also www.pops.int.

 

For links to related topics and the French version please consult the following UNEP web site:

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=399&ArticleID=4544&l=en

 

Selected  articles in newspapers on the PCB consultation meeting:

 

The Financial Times

 

London

Friday, 11 June 2004,

Billions of dollars will be needed over the next 25 years for a global clean-up of polychlorinated biphenyls, toxic chemicals widely used in electrical equipment, the United Nations warned yesterday.

Production of PCBs is now banned under the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants which came into force this year, but many hundreds of thousands of tonnes have been commercially manufactured since 1929. Frances Williams, Geneva

 

The Guardian

 

U.N. Experts Plan Attack on Toxic PCBs

Friday, 11 June 2004,

By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer

 

GENEVA (AP) - Dozens of experts armed with a new global treaty began Thursday to plan a decades-long assault on PCBs, one of the most widespread and difficult to eradicate chemical pollutants.

Billions of dollars will be spent globally ``to make the world PCB-free by the year 2028'' under the treaty that went into force last month, said James B. Willis, director of the chemicals unit at the U.N. Environment Program.

PCBs - polychlorinated biphenyls - which have been extensively used in the United States and elsewhere for transformers and other electrical equipment, have been scattered through the environment through leakage, accidents and careless disposal, the agency said.

Production of the chemicals is banned, but they are still in use in a wide array of electrical equipment, it said. Replacing the equipment and removing the pollution from the environment will take years.

The most common way of disposing of them is through high-temperature incinerators, which are expensive to run, officials said. Other methods also are being developed.

PCBs are among ``the most widespread of all environmental pollutants, found worldwide in air, water, soil, food and the fatty tissues of humans and animals,'' the agency said.

They can cause health problems, including weakened immunity, and possibly cancer, it added.

Some 200 representatives of government, agencies and companies are taking part in the two-day meeting to discuss needs and plan for disposal.

PCBs are one of several toxic chemicals covered by the treaty known as the Stockholm Convention that went into force May 17. The list of pollutants also includes DDT, dioxin and pesticides.

Some 65 countries have already ratified the accord, and about 100 more have signed it. The United States is among the signers, but the Senate has yet to ratify the treaty even though President Bush has given it his strong backing.

 

Xinhua

 

11 June 2004

International efforts promoted for clean-up of toxic PCBs

 

GENEVA, June 10 (Xinhuanet) -- Delegates from governments, donor agencies and commercial firms agreed here Thursday that public and private sectors should promote cooperation in eradicating PCBs, one of 12 highly toxic chemicals targeted for elimination by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are a class of synthetic organic chemicals that are among the most widespread pollutants found worldwide in air, water, soil, food and fatty tissues of humans and animals.

"The financial and technical challenges of eliminating PCBs from the planet will require a vigorous partnership between the public and private sectors," said Executive Director Klaus Toepferof the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), under whose auspices the Stockholm Convention was adopted.

"While international donors and national governments will set priorities and invest tens of millions of dollars, commercial firms have the expertise and technologies to perform much of the actual clean-up work," he said.

The international meeting on June 9-10, which is sponsored by UNEP, offers donors and PCB-related industries the opportunity to discuss upcoming needs for PCB management and disposal, international policy framework, logistical issues and available capacities for PCB storage, management, transport and disposal.

The Stockholm Convention, which entered into force on May 17, 2004, gives governments until 2025 to phase out "in-place equipment" containing PCBs, as long as the equipment is maintainedin a way that prevents leaks. It also grants another three years to ensure the environmentally sound management of PCB-contaminatedwastes.

Due to their low flammability, PCBs have been used extensively in electrical equipment such as transformers and large capacitors employed in power lines and major facilities. They have also been used as additives in paint, carbonless copy paper, and plastics.

Many hundreds of thousands of tons of PCBs have been commercially manufactured since 1929. PCBs' annual world production peaked in the late 1960s at close to 60,000 tons.

Although production is now banned under the Convention, PCBs continue to pose a threat to human health and the environment because of the wide array of PCB-containing electrical equipment still in service. Tons of wastes containing or contaminated by PCBs are also being held at temporary storage sites, particularly in developing countries.

In addition, large quantities of PCBs have been discharged into soils, rivers and lakes over the years.

Large numbers of people have been exposed to PCBs through food contamination. Consumption of PCB-contaminated rice oil in Japan in 1968 and in Taiwan in 1979 caused pigmentation of nails and mucous membranes and swelling of the eyelids, along with fatigue, nausea, and vomiting.


 

Annex 2: meeting Evaluation

Summary

 

Evaluations of the PCB consultation meeting show that participants who responded felt that the PCB meeting was useful, effective, and well-run. Several participants requested more systematic information and direction regarding inventories and disposal technologies. Summarized below are the meeting attendance, ratings of the meeting’s logistics and usefulness, and the more common comments received from respondents.

 

PCB consultation meeting Attendance

 

The PCB consultation meeting had approximately 156 participants. Of these, 33 were from national governments, 84 from industry, 24 from intergovernmental organizations, 8 from non-governmental organizations, and 7 from academic institutions. Sixty-one participants (40%) returned evaluation forms. Table 1 summarizes the meeting attendance and evaluation responses by sector.

 

Table 1. meeting Participants and Evaluations by Sector

 

Sector

Participants

Evaluations Returned

National Governments

33

14

Industry

84

37

Intergovernmental Organizations

24

4

Non-Governmental Organizations

8

4

Academic Institutions

7

3

Total

156

61

 

 

Ratings of the Logistics, Usefulness, and Effectiveness of the meeting

 

Evaluation respondents viewed the meeting as positive, well-planned, and useful. Respondents gave the conference an overall score of 3.2 on a 4-point scale, (1=poor, 2=average, 3=good, 4=excellent). Table 2 summarizes the evaluation of the logistics of the conference. The exhibits and displays received the lowest rating of the logistical elements that we surveyed.

 

Table 2. Ratings of Conference Logistics

 

 

Mean

Min

Max

Number of Respondents

Helpfulness of pre-conference information

3.1

2

4

60

Conference website information

3.1

2

4

59

Exhibits and displays

2.6

1

4

56

Availability of publications and resources

3

2

4

56

Conference participant materials (yellow binders)

2.9

1

4

59

Facilities and rooms used for the conference

3.5

2

4

60

Computing and Internet access

3.4

1

4

52

Overall conference rating

3.2

2

4

59

1=poor, 2=average, 3=good, 4=excellent

 

On average, respondents considered all of the meeting sessions to be useful. Table 3 summarizes means scores for each session on a 3-point scale (1=not useful, 2=useful, 3=very useful). Fewer respondents rated the last few sessions because many left before the meeting finished.

 

Table 3. Ratings of Conference Sessions

 

 

Mean

Number of Respondents

DAY ONE

Session 1:  Opening

2.2

52

Session 2:  Introduction and PCBs as an international environment and health issue

2.1

52

Session 3:  Legal and policy framework for international action on PCBs

2.3

55

Session 4:  PCB inventories: practicalities and the state of knowledge

2.5

55

Session 5:  PCB management and planning

2.2

55

Session 6:  Transporting PCBs

2.3

55

Session 7:  Disposing of waste PCBs and PCB-containing equipment

2.4

58

DAY TWO

Session 8:  Replacement of transformers and other PCB-containing equipment

2.3

56

Session 9:  Financial mechanism of the Stockholm Convention

2.2

50

Session 10:  PCB activities of the GEF Implementing Agencies

2.3

50

Session 11:  PCB activities of the bilateral Official Development Assistance agencies

2.2

46

Session 12:  Innovative approaches to project design

2.3

44

Session 13:  Panel Conclusion

2.4

27

1=not useful, 2=useful, 3=very useful

 

Those who filled out the evaluation forms also felt that the conference was instructive, facilitated knowledge sharing, provided new contacts, and had an effective format. Fewer people believed that the meeting identified practical applications for PCB management and disposal, possibly because the format did not lend itself to a clear evaluation of the applications discussed at the meeting. Table 4 summarizes the respondents’ overall perception of important aspects of the conference on a 4-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree).

 

Table 4. Overall Perception of Conference

 

 

Mean

Min

Max

Number of Respondents

The conference facilitated knowledge sharing among participants

3.3

2

4

56

I found new contacts and opportunities for collaboration     

3.3

2

4

55

I learned material that will be helpful in strategizing, facilitating or conducting PCB disposal and removal     

3.2

1

4

49

The meeting identified practical applications for PCB management and disposal

3.0

1

4

51

Conference staff were helpful and able to answer my questions

3.5

3

4

51

The conference format was effective

3.3

1

4

55

1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participant Comments

 

Respondents to the evaluation form also responded to the following three questions:

 

  1. What should we do differently at a future PCB consultation meeting?
  2. What particular topics surrounding PCB management, disposal, and elimination are you most interested in gaining more knowledge about?
  3. What follow-up activities would you recommend that UNEP Chemicals pursue?

 

A common response (more than ten respondents) was that more time should be provided for networking and interacting in small groups. Specific comments took the form of requests for more informal time, working group sessions, adding a day to the meeting’s length, and having fewer speakers or breaks between sessions to allow more networking.

 

Participants also responded to this and other questions with a request for more information about conducting inventories, suggesting that UNEP Chemicals may want to direct future meetings and other efforts toward developing inventories and allowing for the exchange of information about inventories and how they are conducted, among countries. Some written comments also emphasized the need to actually remove PCBs in addition to merely discussing the issue (though UNEP Chemicals is not in a position to conduct removal).

 

Several respondents stressed the need for further information about:

 

 

Another issue that multiple respondents identified was the need to provide a current and systematic review and comparison of available technologies, according to their applicability to waste matrices, volumes, cost, etc.

 

A few commenters suggested that papers and discussions regarding regional challenges and needs in PCB removal would be of interest to a world-wide audience, and that more case studies should be prepared. Another suggested a session to compare European and North American approaches to PCBs, and the potential for harmonization and standardization of PCB approaches and goals.

 

One commenter advised that a wider audience be invited from PCB producing countries, presumably suggesting that more PCB owners such as utilities and PCB manufacturers also be invited to engage in PCB removal planning. More selected comments in response to the question of what should be done differently at a future PCB conference are attached below in the Appendix.

 

Other commenters requested more practical information about PCB inventories, management, disposal, transport, and phase-out.

 

Another commenter pointed out the need for training to technicians at utility companies/industries on management of PCB and phased disposal, support for information preparation and dissemination to build awareness (brochures, TV programs, etc), and an updated version of the destruction technologies information.

 

 

 

 

Selected Comments Received Following the PCB consultation meeting

 

Note: the comments below were excerpted directly from the evaluations

 

What Should be Done Differently at the Next PCB consultation meeting?

 

ACTION ON PCBs

 

1)      Move from consultation to decision making. As expressed during the conference: inventories have been done, stockpiles are available, funds are available, disposal plants have capacity.

2)      Help drive the funding and disposal process forward. Practical action is required, not talking continuously about options and technologies. The PCB problem has been identified for many years. Funding/disposal now required.

 

EVALUATING TECHNOLOGIES

 

1) Private companies should present their services outside the meeting; during the presentations, being part of the consultation meeting, I would like to see balanced and "neutral" information to better understand the + and - of various options.

 

ADDRESSING PCB OWNERS

 

1)      Look at ways/means of encouraging cooperation of organizations which have PCBs. During meeting much was made of the various conventions' regional activities and inventory taking and criminal activities, but little mention of PCB owners. For example the regional inventory takers could do an initial survey multiply results by 5 and assess the GEF funding available. Then explain to owners that declared PCBs would be disposed of at a discounted price and that undeclared PCBs would be changed out at market price plus penalty. Philosophy is that business likes uncertainty and would prefer to look at a fixed cost of disposal. Unfortunately many environmental clean ups involve POP owner with a seemingly unending costs of consultants and resultant unquantifiable extended costs.

 

LOGISTICS

 

1)      Provide a list of present participators at least at first hours of the meeting

2)      Send out a call for papers to all potential participants so that all will be given opportunities to present

3)      Include 2 or 3 Keynote talks with basic information about PCBs properties, health effects, electrical applications

4)      Avoid repetition of same subjects by various speakers; ensure speakers use technical criteria and proven arguments instead of "assumptions"

5)      Set requirements for the PowerPoint presentations so that photocopies can be read in the small size in the hand-outs

6)      Don't have a panel wrap-up but rather perhaps the Chairman could provide a few summary, overarching points

7)      Offer tea and coffee immediately outside convention hall--free

8)      Make available by CD large resource documents (in the present case, the Cement Industry report, the STAP report on appropriate technologies, and the draft Basel papers sector-by-sector)

9)      Provide conference funding for participants from developing countries

 

 

 

 

 

What particular topics surrounding PCB management, disposal, and elimination are you most interested in gaining more knowledge about?

 

TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR EVALUATION

1)      Technologies and how to evaluate/consider them as BEP or BAT

2)      PCB in environment and humans; more dedicated approach to categorizing different technologies and checking claims of various companies

3)      Make available criterion and evaluation results on technology choices

4)      Prospective Technologies

5)      Mobile elimination technologies; financing mechanisms

6)      Technology of elimination like ENVIO

7)      Original vendors of non-combustion technologies clear evaluatoin of technologies according to destruction efficiency in full TEQs values

8)      Present technologies according to their applicability (waste matrix, volumes, etc…)

9)      Comment officially on "fancy" technologies presented

10)   More information about technologies.

11)   Ask for clarification (exact figures) on POPs releases during handling and disposal of PCBs from all experts giving presentations

12)   As part of the outcome of the China study, an update of availability of non-incineration technologies, a meeting should be held to discuss the findings and give tech. providers an opportunity to present their technologies

 

GENERAL PCB TOPICS

 

1)      Treatment of SOILS contaminated with PCBs

2)      PCB disposal and how to manage a contaminated site

3)      Replacement of transformers

4)      PCB management for in use equipment with PCB concentration <50 ppm and elimination starting with replacement, removal and finally disposal

5)      Analyses, analytical methods in laboratories, verification and validation of final results of unique and united method in all oils

6)      Regional training courses (training for trainers) on PCB management in sound environmental manner

7)      PCB identification, disposal and elimination

8)      How the process of replacing PCB transformers with new systems is managed

9)      Extent of PCB contaminated soils, quantity and location

10)   transporting; disposing

11)   Practical experience with capacitor destructions since in many instances the number of capacitors exceeds the number of transformers, but most detailed presentations focused on transformer cleaning and lower concentrations of PCBs

12)   Address PCB's in Fluourescent Lighting Ballasts;

13)   Control, liability aspects, military uses

14)   Disposal techniques, recommended technologies, definitions and limits for total destruction

15)   BAT for disposal/treatment of PCB contaminated soils/solids would be beneficial

16)   Focus on assistance procedures for developing countries and testing

17)   Papers/discussions regarding regional challenges/opportunities/needs would be of interest to a world-wide audience

18)   Organize a special session to show the differences between European and North American approaches regarding PCBs, <illegible word> harmonisation, standardization, etc.

19)   More clean-up case studies; pragmatic approaches proven to work; investment opportunities

20)   more info about inventories in countries; stress changing of info among countries

21)   Focus on two specific areas next meeting: management of PCB and disposal or elimination

22)   More technical details available;

23)   Recognize total hazardous waste situation--difficult to discuss PCBs in isolation, especially when talking about disposal

24)   applicability and limitation of PCB destruction technologies for other POPs, pesticides, or "future" POPs (PBDEs)

 

INVENTORIES

 

1)      Principles of inventory; options for disposal

2)      Inventory, management and decontamination techniques

3)      Inventories, management options

4)      Practical measures for developing countries which involve preparatory work being done there (rather than shipping to Europe)

5)      PCB monitoring and further methods of analysis

 

TIMING AND FINANCING

 

1)      When the first disposal projects will start

2)      Timetables and financing of PCB elimination programs worldwide

3)      National and international financing

4)      new GEF activities in new projects

5)      reports on GEF demonstration projects

6)      PCB activities of the GEF implementing agencies; innovative approaches to project design

 

OTHER COMMENTS

 

1)      organize another similar meeting on Dioxins/Furans in next 3-4 months

2)      More practical information. This meeting contained too few answers and solutions.

3)      Insist on practical aspects, field experience; invite more reps from developing countries, not just administratives

4)      health issues linked with PCBs, any studies by WHO or any EPAs, etc; level of persistence of

5)      Deal with issues raised in QandA in more detail;

6)      Examples from the power industry, on their approach on the issue, and how they deal with testing, etc.

7)      knowledge-transfer tools

8)      Issues raised in Session 4: accuracy of field testing; More information about historical manufacturers, model/type numbers of pcb equipment

9)      methods/views on planning execution phases (instead of intentions, etc)

10)   Implementation plans for PCB destruction and access to implementation opportunities

 

Recommended follow-up activities for UNEP Chemicals?

 

1)      Concerning NIP activities, appreciated if some guidelines on how to identify BEP and BAT related to PCB management, disposal, elimination are developed

2)      Awareness raising WS at regional and subregional level, on PCB management

3)      Pilot projects on PCB management and elimination; Partnership with industry on PCB equipment

4)      Four things: 1) training to technicians at utility companies/industries on management of PCB and phased disposal; 2) provide support for awareness to assist in information preparation, dissemination (brochures, TV programs, etc); 3) Disseminate an update version of destruction technologies

5)      Help other countries with their inventory and finding money on analyses of transformer oils (e.g. save money on fast tests)

6)      Update list of Producers and trademarks based on actual results of inventories

7)      Thorough comparative review of existing technologies

8)      Follow-up the transport/notification issues as described by for example Ekokem, prepare tenders

9)      send to participants more information about modification of laws

10)   Continue to ensure collaboration among multi-laterals, bi-laterals, and govt. Ensure sharing experiences.

11)   Initiating local intiatives in countries; international PR concerning POPs in general

12)   Details of how they plan to drive the process forward to finally result in elimination of PCBs

13)   project transfer management

14)   Issues raised in Session 4 regarding the accuracy of field testing; investigation and report on cost of alternative technologies; long term monitoring procedures and recommendations for retrofilled transformers; Practical assistance package for developing countries so they can start identifying, packing, containing, minimising risks

15)   Produce a program for the timetable of PCB elimination from inventory to actual disposal, concrete action, actual projects

16)   meeting on POPs and obsolete pesticides

17)   Push for standardization of destruction limits worldwide. To make approval by different jurisdictions easier.

18)   Set consistent PCB definition standard (Canada is different); approval process in place to facilitate transferring of technologies

19)   Give standards and definitions on limit-values and analytical methods

20)   Open discussions on harmonization of standards. Continuous monitoring of technologies in commercial use.

21)   soils/solids BAT

22)   clear commitments for activities concerning NIP, especially inventory and action plan

23)   NOE-network of excellence

24)   more strict evaluation of destruction technologies

25)   Discussions on appropriate technologies covering aspects of cost, capacity, energy consumption, etc. and total hazardous waste strategy

26)   NIP, capacity building

27)   update earlier UNEP documents on PCBs, inventories, etc; publish the proceedings

28)   One year from now: what progress has been made and, more importantly, what have been "lessons learned"?

29)   small brainstorm group incl. industry, consultants, govts., and financial institutions

30)   More clarity about POPs waste incineration according to requirements of Stockholm Convention

31)   INVENTORIES: A meeting totally dedicated to practical aspects of PCB inventories

32)   share work conducted by countries; PCB inventory projects

33)   Similar workshops be arranged


 

 


 

Annex 3: List of Participants

 

 

GOVERNMENTS 

 

Argentina

 

Mr Lorenzo González Videla

Coordinator, Chemicals Unit

Secretariat of Environment and Sustainable Development

San Martin 451 4 of 420

Buenos Aires

Argentina

Tel: +54 11 4348 8350

Fax: +54 11 4348 8624

Email: lvidela@medioambiente.gov.ar

 

Armenia

 

Mr Anahit Aleksandryan

Head of Department

Ministry of Nature Protection

Republic of Armenia

3 Government Building, Republic Sq. Yerevan 375010

Republic of Armenia

Tel: +37 4 1 53 88 38

Fax: +374 1 53 88 38

Email: analeks@freenet.am

 

Australia

 

Mr Cameron Hill

Policy & Multilateral Branch

Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid)

Australian Permanent Mission to the U.N.

2, Ch. Es Fins

1211 Geneva 19

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (0) 22 799 9100

Fax: +41 (0)22 799 9190

Email: chill4101@yahoo.com

 

Cambodia

 

Mr Chea Sina

Deputy Director, Department of

Polution Control

Ministry of Environment

48, Samdech Preah Sihanouk

Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon

Phnom Penh

Cambodia

Tel: +855 12 915 792

Fax: +855 23 220 392

Email: nip_pops@online.com.kh

 

Cuba

 

Mr Mario Abo Balanza

Senior Specialist in Environmental Management.

Ministry of Sciences, Technology and Environment

Calle 20 esq 18-A, Playa

La Habana

Cuba

Tel: +537 202 9351

Fax: +537 204 90 31

Email: mabo@ama.cu

 

Czech Republic

 

Mr Jaromir Manhart

Senior Official, Expert on Hazardous Waste PCBs

Ministry of the Environment

Vrsovicka 65, 10010 Prague

Czech Republic

Tel: +420 26712 2895

Fax: +420 26731 1545

Email: manhart@env.cz

 

Democratic Republic of the Congo

 

Mr Damien Lungili-Kabuka

Directeur

Direction des ETS Humains & Protection de l'Environnement

Avenue des Cliniques No. 15

Cummune de la Gombe

Kinshasa 2438

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Tel: +243 8181 25145

Fax: +243 884 3675

Email: lungili@yahoo.fr

 

Ethiopia

 

Mr Tequam Tesfamariam

POPs Enabling Activity Project (Ethiopia)

Environmental Protection Agency

P.O. Box 23849

Addis Ababa

Ethiopia

Tel: +251 1 260108

Fax: +251 1 512733

Email: tequam.tesfamariam@undp.org

 

Finland

 

Mr Jouko Eskelinen

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

PO Box 176, Katajanokanlaituri 3

00161 Helsinki

Finland

Tel: +358 9 16056107

Fax: +358 9 16056470

Email: jouko.eskelinen@formin.fi

 

Germany

 

Mr Jörg Friedrich

Scientist

Federal Environmental Agency/Umweltbundesamt

Post Office Box 33 002214191Berlin

Germany

Tel: +49 30 8903 3571

Fax: +49 30 8903 3103

Email: joerg.friedrich@uba.de

 

Mr Matthias Kern

Project Manager

GTZ Convention Project Chemical Safety

Tulpenfeld 2

53113 Bonn

Germany

Tel: +49 228 985 7014

Fax: +49 228 985 7018

Email: gmatthias.kern@gtz.de

 

Italy

 

Ms Stefania Esposito

Italian Mission, Geneva

ch. De l'Imperatrice, Geneve 10

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (22) 734 9356

Email: estefania@email.it

 

Ms Barbara Merson

Italian Mission, Geneva

ch. De l'Imperatrice, Geneve 10

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (22) 734 9356

Email: barbaramerson@yahoo.it

 

Mr Carlo Lupi

Chief Technical Advisor

Sino-Italian PCB Project

Via Fonte Buono 63, 00142 Roma

Italy

Email: carlolupi@fastwebnet.it

 

Japan

 

Mr Mayumi Suzuki

Advisor

Permanent Mission of Japan

3, Chemin des Fins, Grand-Saconnex

1218 Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 717 3111

Fax: +41 22 788 3811

Email: mayumi.suzuki@ge-japan.ch

 

Pakistan

 

Mr Noman F. Qadir

National Project Manager

POPs Enabling Activity Project

44-E, 3rd Floor, Office Tower

Fazl e Haq Road, Blue Area, Islamabad

Pakistan

Tel: +92 51 920 1338

Fax: +92 51 920 1348

Email: nfgadir@yahoo.com 

 

Qatar

 

Mr Mohamed G Ibrahim

Head of Chemical Management, POPs and PIC focal Point

Supreme Council for Environment and Natural Reserves

C-Ring Rod, Doha

Qatar

Tel: +974 4350504

Fax: +974 441 5246

Email: mgibrahim@qatarenv.org.qa       

 

Russian Federation

 

Mr Yury A. Treger

Deputy General Director

Scientific Research Institute "Syntez"

P.O. Box 56

2 Ugreshskaya Street

119992 Moscow

Russian Federation

Tel: +7 095 748 8690

Fax: +7 095 913 9243

Email: treger_ihf@mtu-net.ru

 

Slovakia

 

Ms Monika Kissova

Manager of Department of Chemical Safety

Slovak Environmental Agency

Hanulova 5/D, 844 40 Bratislava

Slovak Republic

Tel: +421 2 60201628

Fax: +421 2 64282683

Email: kissova@sazp.sk

 

Sweden

 

Mr Lars Asplund

Naturvårdsverket/Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

SE-106 48 Stockholm

Sweden

Tel: +46 8 698 1158

Fax: +46 8 698 1222

Email: lars.asplund@naturvardsverket.se

 

Syria

 

Mr Nader Ghazi

Director of Chemical Safety

Chemical Safety Department

PO Box 3773, Damascus

Syria

Tel: +963 11 444 3729

Fax: +963 11 33 41 474

Email: env-mih@net.sy

 

Switzerland

 

Mr Beat Nobbs

Ambassador, Head of International Affairs Division      

Swiss Agency for the Environment

Forests and Landscape

CH-3003 Berne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 31 322 9323

Fax: +41 31 323 0349

Email: beat.nobs@buwal

 

Ms Nadine Speich

Natural Resources & Environment Division

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

Freiburgstrasse 130

3003 Bern

Switzerland

Tel: +41 31 372 6058

Email: Nadine.Speich@bluewin.ch

 

 

 

 

 

Thailand

 

Ms. Pornpimon Chareonsong

Environmental Scientist

Pollution Control Department

92 Soi Phahon Yothin 7, Phahon Yothin Rd, Sam Sen Nai, Phayathai, 10400 Bangkok

Thailand

Tel: +66 2298 2457

Fax: +66 2298 2425

Email: dbase.c@pcd.go.th

 

Ukraine

 

Ms Svitlana Sukhorebra

Manager, PCB Inventory

National Center for Hazardous Waste

Management

39, Degtyarivska Str, Off Y

03113 Kiev

Ukraine

Tel: +38 (044) 456 03 06

Fax: +38 (044) 456 03 06

Email: inventor@i.kiev.ua

 

United Kingdom

 

Ms Nicola Lettington

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

Zone 3/E6, Ashdown House

123 Victoria Street, London SW1 6DE

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 020 7082 8103

Fax: +44 020 7082 8086

Email: nicola.lettington@defra.gsi.gov.uk

 

United Republic of Tanzania

 

Ms Angelina Madete

Assistant Director, Vice President's Office

Vice-President's Office

United Republic of Tanzania

PO Box 5380, Dar-Es-Salaam

United Republic of Tanzania

Tel: +255 22 2113983/2118416

Fax: +255 22 2125297/2113856

Email: angelamadete.@hotmail.com or

info@vpdoe.govtz

 

United States of America

 

Ms Loren Habegger

Associate Division Director - EAD

Argonne National Laboratory

9700 South Cass Avenue

Argonne, IL 60439

United States of America

Tel: +1 630 252 3761

Fax: +1 630 252 5880

Email: lhabegger@anl.gov

 

Ms Eleonora Barnes

Program Manager

United States Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C.20004

United States of America

Tel: +1 202 564 6473

Fax: +1 202 565 2409/2411

Email: barnes.eleonora@epa.gov

 

Mr John H. Smith

Chemist, Fibers and Organics Branch

United States Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20460

United States of America

Fax: +1 202 566 0473

Email: smith.johnh@epa.gov

 

Uruguay

 

Ms Jacqueline Alvarez Mourelle

Ministerio de Vivienda, Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente

Rincon 422

Montevideo 11000

Uruguay

Tel: +598 2 917 0710

Fax: +598 2 916 8288

Email: suspel@adinet.com.uy

 

Vietnam

 

Mr Nguyen Cuong

Officer, Pollution Control & Wast Management Division

Vietnam Environmental Protection Agency

Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment

Vietnam

Email: nmcuong@nea.gov.vn

 

Zambia

 

Mr Nelson Manda

Coordinator, UNEP PCB Inventory Project for SADC Countries

Environmental Council of Zambia

PO Box 35131 Cnr. Suez & Church Roads

Plot No 6975, Ridgeway Area, Lusaka

Zambia

Tel: +260 1 256 658

Fax: +260 1 254 164

Email: nmanda@necz.org.zm

 

 


 

INDUSTRY

 

ABB Transformatoren Gmbh

 

Mr Sven Schreiber

Area Sales Manager

ABB Transformatoren Gmbh

Bremecketal, DE 59929

Brilon

Germany

Tel: +49 2961 797 121

Fax: +49 2961 797 293

Email: sven.schreiber@de.abb.com

 

AGR Vertrieb GmbH

 

Mr Norbert Makedonski

Coordinator

AGR Vertrieb GmbH

Im Emscherbruch 11

Herten, 45699

Germany

Tel: +02366/300-326

Fax: +02366/300-601

Email: nmakedonski@agr.de

 

Akzo-Nobel Chemicals

 

Mr Tom Pichel

Marketing Manager

Akzo-Nobel Chemicals

Box 7020, Welplaatweg 12

3000 HA Rotterdam

Netherlands

Tel: +31 10 4389258

Fax: +31 10 4389295

Email: tpm.pichel@akzonobel.com

 

Mr Floris Spijk

Process-Engineer

Akzo-Nobel Chemicals

Box 7020, Welplaatweg 12

3000 HA, Rotterdam

Netherlands

Tel: +31 10 4389258

Fax: +31 10 4389295

Email: floris.spijk@akzonobel.com

 

APO Ltd

 

Mrs Sanja Grabar

Deputy Director

APO Ltd

Savska Cesta 41

10000 Zagreb

Croatia

Tel: +385 1 6311 999

Fax: +385 1 6176 734

Email: sanja.grabar@apo.hr

 

Aptechnologies SA

 

Mr Jacques Ehretsmann

Director

Aptechnologies SA

35 Rte des Jeunes

Ch 1227 Carouge

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (22) 342 7144

Fax: +41 (22) 342 5818

Email: ehretsmann@swissonline.ch

 

 Atofina

 

Mr Frédéric Loussayre

Business Manager, Chlorochemicals and Solvents Division.

Atofina

4-8 cours Michelet, La Défense 10

F-92091 Paris La Défense

France

Tel: +33 149 00 8446

Fax: +33 149 00 5499

Email: frederic.loussayre@atofina.com

 

AVR-Industrial Waste B.V.

 

Mr Marco Kortland

Manager Projects

AVR-Industrial Waste B.V.

Prof. Gerbrandyweg 10

Rotterdam-Botlek 3197 KK

Netherlands

Tel: +31 181 273 270

Fax: +31 181 273 271

Email: marco.kortland@avr.nl

 

Bayerwerk

 

Mr R. Koch

Snr. Advisor Chemical Policy

International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA)

Bayerwerk

Leverkusen, 51368

Germany

Tel: +49 214 30 61490

Fax: +49 214 30534 07

Email: rainer-kurt.koch.rk@bayer-ag.de

 

BCD CZ a.s.

 

Mr Bert Stiers

BCD CZ a.s.

Francouzska 75/4

12000 Prague 2

Czech Republic

Tel: +42 0 222 922 619

Fax: +42 0 222 519 755

Email: bert.stiers@bert.stiers@bcdcz.cz

 

BCD Technologies Pty Ltd

 

Mr Martin Krynen

General Manager

BCD Technologies Pty Ltd

P.O. Box 119, Narangba

QLD 4504

Australia

Tel: +61 7 3203 3400

Fax: +61 7 3203 3450

Email: marius@qil.com.au

 

Berenschot

 

Mr Robert Dommerholt

Senior Consultant International Solutions

Berenschot

Europalaan 40

3503 Utrecht

Netherlands

Tel: +31 30 291 6916

Fax: +31 30 1916827

Email: robert@dommerholt.com

 

Dr. Bilger Umweltconsulting GmbH

 

Mr Edgar Bilger

Director

Dr. Bilger Umweltconsulting GmbH

Rodenbacher Chaussee 6

Hanau 63457

Germany

Tel: +49 (6181) 58 2688

Fax: +49 (6181) 58 2686

Email: bilgergmbh@t-online.de

 

Celtic Recycling Ltd

 

Mr K.M. James

Managing Director

Celtic Recycling Ltd

Units 17, 18 & 37, Village Farm Industrial Estate, Pyle, Bridgend, CF33 6BZ

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 01656 745777

Fax: +44 01656 745888

Email: kmjames@celtic-recycling.co.uk

 

Mr J. Jennings

Project Engineer

Celtic Recycling Ltd

Units 17,  18 & 37, Village Farm Industrial Estate, Pyle, Bridgend, CF33 6BZ

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 01656 745777

Fax: +44 01656 745888

Email: johnjennings@celtic-recycling.co.uk

 

Ms Lesley Pitman

Health & Safety Manager

Celtic Recycling Ltd

Units 17, 18 & 37, Village Farm Industrial Estate, Pyle, Bridgend, CF33 6BZ

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 01656 745777

Fax: +44 01656 745888

Email: lesleypitman@celtic-recycling.co.uk

 

Chemel S.A. de C.V.

 

Mr Jose Manuel Avelar

President

Chemel S.A. de C.V.

Insurgentes Sur No. 1480, Piso 12, Col. Insurgentes Mixcoac, 03230

Mexico City

Mexico

Tel: +52 55 55 24 39 60

Fax: +52 55 55 34 21 19

Email: chemelsa@iserve.net.mx

 

Cleanaway Ltd

 

Mr David Curtis

Sales Manager - Development

Cleanaway Ltd

Bridges Road, Ellesmere Port

Cheshire CH65 4EQ

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 0151 348 5000

Fax: +44 0151 348 5203

Email: davidcurtis@cleanaway.com

 

Mr Mervyn Hall

Sales Manager - Overseas

Cleanaway Ltd

Airborne Close, Leigh-on-Sea

Essex SS9 4EL

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 1277 723525

Fax: +44 1277 723524

Email: mervynhall@cleanaway.com       

 

COGIC Consultants

 

Mr Georges Kamar

Consultant

COGIC Consultants

PO Box 166274, Beirut

Lebanon

Tel: +961 3 261 214

Fax: +961 1 380040

Email: cogic-gk@cyberia.net.lb

 

COWI

 

Mr Helle Husum

Consultant – Senior Legal Aviser

COWI

Parallelvej 2, 2800 Lynby 2800

Denmark

Tel: +45 45 97 22 11

Fax: +45 45 97 22 12

Email: hhu@cowi.dk

 

CropLife International

 

Mr Chris Waller

CropLife International

Avenue Louise 143

B1050 Brussels

Belgium

Tel: +44 1730  8130 94

Fax: +44 1730 8130 94

Email: chris.waller@obstocks.co.uk

 

ecolisto

 

Mr Peter Oggier

Consultant

ecolisto

Kraeyigenweg 93, Muri b.

Bern, CH-3074

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (31) 952 79 55

Fax: +41 (31) 952 79 56

Email: oggier.ecolisto@swissonline.ch

 

Ecolsir SRL

 

Mr Mario Coppo

Ecolsir SRL

Via Como W.S., 200.10 Inveruno

Italy

Tel: +39 02 97876801

Fax: +39 02 97289606

Email: ecolsir@tiscalnet.it

 

Mr Dario Maronatti

Ecolsir SRL

Via Como W.S., 200.10 Inveruno

Italy

Tel: +39 02 9787 6801

Fax: +39 02 9728 9606

Email: ecolsir@tiscalnet.it

 

EDL Environmental Decontamination Limited

 

Mr Mike Bulley

Technical Adviser

EDL Environmental Decontamination Limited

PO Box 58-609, Greenmount

Auckland

New Zealand

Tel: +64 9 274 9862

Fax: +64 9 274 7393

Email: mikebulley@clear.net.nz

 

Ekokem Oy Ab

 

Ms Pasi Silvennoinen

Sales Manager - Export

Ekokem Oy Ab

PO Box 181

FIN-11101 Riihimäki

Finland

Tel: +358 10 7551 372

Fax: +358 10 7551 211

Email: Pasi.Silvennoinen@ekokem.fi

 

Enervac Middle East

 

Mr Amir Malekghassemi

Organizer & Project Manager

Enervac Middle East

No 271 Shahid Beheshtiave

15316 Tehran

Iran

Tel: +98 21 873 6439

Fax: +98 21 873 4109

Email: enervac-me@morva.net

 

Envio Germany GmbH & Co. KG

 

Mr Helmut Bergel

Sales & Project Manager

Envio Germany GmbH & Co. KG

Kanalstrasse 25

Dortmund, 44147

Germany

Tel: +49 (231) 9982-230

Fax: +49 (231) 9982-202

Email: helmut.bergel@envio-group.com

 

Mr Christoph Harks

Business Development

Envio Germany GmbH & Co. KG

Kanalstrasse 25

Dortmund, 44147

Germany

Tel: +49 (231) 9982-224

Fax: +49 (231) 9982-202

Email: christoph.harks@envio-group.com

 

Mr Dirk Neupert

Managing Director

Envio Germany GmbH & Co. KG

Kanalstrasse 25

Dortmund, 44147

Germany

Tel: +49 (231) 9982-200

Fax: +49 (231) 9982-202

Email: dirk.neupert@envio-group.com

 

ETI Environmental Technology

 

Mr Francis de Haas

Senior  Project Manager

ETI Environmental Technology International Ltd

Kalchbuehlstrasse 18

CH 7007

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (81) 253 54 54

Fax: +41 (81) 253 66 22

Email: dehaas@eti-swiss.com

 

Mr Ueli Schneider

Assistant to CEO

ETI Environmental Technology International Ltd

Kalchbuehlstrasse 18 Chur, 7007 Switzerland

Tel: +41 (81) 253 54 54

Fax: +41 (81) 253 66 22

Email: schneider.ueli@eti-swiss.com

 

Mr Urs Wagner

CEO

ETI Environmental Technology International Ltd

Kalchbuehlstrasse 18 Chur, 7007 Switzerland

Tel: +41 (81) 253 54 54

Fax: +41 (81) 253 66 22

Email: wagner@eti-swiss.com

 

 

 

Euro Chlor

 

Mr Arseen Seys, Director

Euro Chlor

Avenue E. VanNieuwenhuzse 4, Box 2

1160 Brussels

Belgium

Tel: +32 2 676 7251

Fax: +32 2 676 7241

Email: ase@cefic.be

 

World Business Council for Sustainable Development and CEMBUREAU Brussels

SINTEF

 

Mr Kåre Helge Karstensen

Representative

World Business Council for Sustainable Development and CEMBUREAU Brussels

SINTEF, P.O. Box 124, NO-0314 Oslo

Norway

Tel: +47 9305 9475

Fax: +47 2206 7350

Email: kare.h.karstensen@sintef.no       

 

Eurotech Waste Management Limited

 

Mr Chris White

Director

Eurotech Waste Management Limited

Enterprise Park, Northern Road

Newark, NG24 2DZ

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 1636 701686

Fax: +44 1636 708867

Email: info@pcbdisposal.co.uk

 

GHD Pty Ltd

 

Ms Alison Baker

Deputy Manager

International Development Group

GHD Pty Ltd

Level 8, 180 Lonsdale Street

Melbourne, VIC 3000

Australia

Tel: +61 3 8687-8000

Fax: +61 3 8687-8111

Email: alison_baker@ghd.com.au

 

GSB Sonderabfall-Entsorgung Bayern Gmbh

 

Mr Matthias Krämer

Sales Department

GSB Sonderabfall-Entsorgung Bayern Gmbh

Ausserer Ring 50

Baar-Ebenhausen 85107

Germany

Tel: +49 8453 91 223

Fax: +49 8453 91 230

Email: matthias.kraemer@gsb-mbh.de

 

Mr Yves Guibert

 

Consultant

C6 L'Etraz

01150 Lagnieu

France

Tel: +33 474 359

Fax: +33 474 359

Email: yguibert@wanadoo.fr

 

HIM GmbH

 

Mr Thorsten Appel

International Sales

HIM GmbH

Waldstrabe 11

64584 Biebesheim

Germany

Tel: +49 (6258) 895 97

Fax: +49 (6258) 895 63

Email: thorsten.appel@him.de

 

International HCH & Pesticide Association (IMPA)

 

Mr Jan Betlem

International HCH & Pesticide Association (IMPA)

PO Box 133

7400 AC Deventer

Netherlands

Tel: +31 (570) 699751

Fax: +31 (570) 699007

Email: jlb@tauw.nl

 

Kinectrics Inc

 

Mr Luciano A. Gonzalez

Manager

Environmental Engineering Department

Kinectrics Inc

800 Kipling Avenue

Toronto M8Z 6C4

Canada

Tel: +1 (416) 207 6000

Fax: +1 (416) 207 6094

Email: luciano.gonzalez@kinectrics.com

 

Meurs Uitvoeringsmanagement BV

 

Mr Enno Christan

Meurs Uitvoeringsmanagement BV

Bleek 10, 3447 GV

Woerden

Netherlands

Tel: +31 348 487 531

Fax: +31 348 487 403

Email:   e.christan@meursgroep.nl

 

Environmental Consulting

 

Mr  Albrecht Melber

Environmental Consulting

Ingenieurburo Dr. Melber

Liebfrauenstrasse 110

64289 Darmstadt

Germany

Tel: +49 (0) 177 580 2231

Fax: +49 (0) 6151 494557

Email: docmel@t-online.de

 

Enviro-Consultant

 

Mr Michael Mueller

Director

Enviro-Consultant

Haydnstr. 21

76706 Dettenheim

Baden

Germany

Tel: +49 7247 946 103

Fax: +49 7247 946 104

Email: michael.mueller@enviro-consultant.com

 

Mindest S.A.

 

Ms Abbe Bornhauser

Mindest S.A.

16 Ch. Du Foron

Thonex

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 348 2111

Fax: +41 22 348 2111

Email: mindest@bluewin.ch

 

Mr Alain Francois

Mindest S.A.

16 Ch. Du Foron

Thonex

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 348 2111

Fax: +41 22 348 2111

Email: mindest@bluewin.ch

Orion BV

 

Mr D. Hoogendoorn

Advisor to the Board

Orion BV

De Steven 25

Drachten AX 9206

Netherlands

Tel: +31 (512) 532515

Fax: +31 (512) 541130

Email: d.hoogendoorn@orionUN2315.nl

www.orionUN2315.nl

 

Mr D.J.K. Hoogendoorn

President

Orion BV

De Steven 25

Drachten, AX 9206

Netherlands

Email: d.j.hoogendoorn@orionUN2315.nl

Tel: +31 (512) 532515

Fax: +31 (512) 541130

www.orionUN2315.nl

 

Mrs Y.H. Hoogendoorn

Sales Manager

Orion BV

De Steven 25

Drachten, AX 9206

Netherlands

Tel: +31 (512) 532515

Fax: +31 (512) 541130

Email: y.h.hoogendoorn@orionUN2315.nl

www.orionUN2315.nl

 

Papusha Rocket Technology

 

Professor Anatoly Papusha

Papusha Rocket Technology

Moskovskaya ul. 32-11

141400 Khimki

Moscow

Russia

Tel: +7 095 573 8048

Fax: +7 095 573 8048

Email: papusha@a27.ru

 

PCB Containment Technology Inc

 

Mr Byron Day

President

PCB Containment Technology Inc

75 Wanless Court

Ayr N0B 1EO

Canada

Tel: +1-519-740 1333

Fax: +1-519-740 2320

Email: byron@contech.ca

 

Powertech Labs Inc

 

Mr Keith Lee

Manager , Chemical Technologies

Powertech Labs Inc.

12388 88th Avenue

Surrey, British Columbia V3W 7R7

Canada

Tel: +1 (604) 590 7438

Fax: +1 (604) 590 7489

Email: Keith.lee@powertechlabs.com

 

Richter & Hess Industrie - und Gefahrgutverpackungs Gmbh

 

Mr Ulrich Richter

Geschaeftsfuehrer

Richter & Hess Industrie - und Gefahrgutverpackungs Gmbh

Schneeberger Str 3, 09125, Chemnitz

Germany

Tel: +49 371 271840

Fax: +49 371 2718418

Email: info@richter-hess.de

 

Rinnen GmbH & Co. KG

 

Mr Jose E. Lopez Lozano

Director

Rinnen GmbH & Co. KG

Avda Europa  S/N.

Pol. Industrial de Constanti

E-43120 Constanti (Tarragona)

Spain

Tel: +349 7729 6537

Fax: +349 7729 6546

Email: jose-e.lopez@rinnenhispania.es

 

Mr Juan J. Lopez

Logistic Director

Rinnen GmbH & Co. KG

Avda Europa S/N.

Pol. Industrial de Constanti

E-43120  Constanti (Tarragona)

Spain

Tel: +349 7725 7717

Fax: +349 77 296 546

Email: juanjo.lopez@rinnenhispania.es

 

 

 

Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Plc

 

Mr Paul Hayward

Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Plc

65 Fir Tree Avenue

Wallingford 0X10

United Kingdom.

Tel: +44  1491 839750

Fax: +44  1491 839750

Email: paul.hayward@uk.royalsun.com

 

RWE Umwelt Sonderabfallwirtschaft GmbH

 

Mr Ludwig Ramacher

Sales Manager for International Waste Acquisition

RWE Umwelt Sonderabfallwirtschaft GmbH

Luepertzender Str. 6

41061 Moenchengladbach

Germany

Tel: +49 2161 9274 364

Fax: +49 2161 9274 360

Email: ludwig.ramacher@rwe.com

 

SEA Marconi Technologies S.a.s

 

Mr Alessandro Capo

Sales Manager

SEA Marconi Technologies S.a.s

Sea Marconi Via Crimea 4

Collegno (To) 10097

Italy

Tel: +39 (011) 40.31.473

Fax: +39 (011) 40.31.384

Email: capo@seamarconi.it

 

Miss Cristina Tumiatti

Marketing Manager

SEA Marconi Technologies S.a.s

Sea Marconi Via Crimea 4

Collegno (To), 10097

Italy

Tel: +39 (011) 40.31.473

Fax: +39 (011) 40.31.384

Email: tumiatticri@seamarconi.it

 

Mr Vander Tumiatti

General Manager

SEA Marconi Technologies S.a.s

Sea Marconi Via Crimea 4

Collegno (To), 10097

Italy

Tel: +39 (011) 40.31.473

Fax: +39 (011) 40.31.384

Email: tumiatti@seamarconi.it

 

Séché Eco-Industries

 

Mr F. Ruel

Séché Eco-Industries

33 rue de Mogador

7-5009 Paris

France

Tel: +33 1 53 21 53 53

Fax: +33 1 53 21 53 54

Email: f.ruel@tredi.com

 

Mr Joël Séché

Séché Eco-Industries

33 rue de Mogador

7-5009 Paris

France

Tel: +33 1 53 21 53 53

Fax: +33 1 53 21 53 54

 

Mr Christoph Rittersberger

Séché Eco-Industries

33 rue de Mogador

7-5009 Paris

France

Tel: +33 6 09 37 08 04

Email: c.rittersberger@groupe-seche.com

 

Shanks Chemical Services Ltd

 

Mr Mike Bowen

International Sales Executive

Shanks Chemical Services Ltd

Pontyfelin Industrial Estate

New Road

Panteg Pontypool, Gwent NP4 OSH

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (1495) 756231

Fax: +44 (1495) 757019

Email: mike.bowen@shanks.co.uk

 

Siemens AG

 

Mr Heinz Raithel

Director Sales & Marketing for GEAFOL

Siemens AG

Hegelstr. 20

73230 Kirchheim / Teck

Germany

Tel: +49 7021 508 469

Fax: +49 7021 508 495

Email: heinz.raithel@siemens.com

 

 

 

Sita Decontamination

 

Mr Jacques Ledure

Managing Director

Sita Decontamination

Westvaartdijk, 97

B. 1850 Grimbergen

Belgium

Tel: +32 2 251 5550

Fax: +32 2 251 9087

Email: jacques.ledure@sita.be

 

Spectrum HSE Technology b.v.

 

Mr M. Garama

Spectrum HSE Technology b.v.

Einsteinweg 1c

3200 AM Spgkenisse

Netherlands

Tel: +31 181 619789

Fax: +31 181 621091

Email:  m.garama@spectech.nl

 

Starkstrom Geratebau Gmbh

 

Mr Reiner Streek

Starkstrom Geratebau Gmbh

OHM Str 10

93055 Regensburg

Germany

Tel: +0941 7841 201

Fax: +0941 7841 440

Email: reiner.streek@sgb-trafo.de

 

Stena Gotthard AB

 

Mr Peter Domini

Manager Business Development

Stena Gotthard AB

Box 4088, 40040 Gothenburg

Sweden

Tel: +46 31 775 22 65

Fax: +46 31 14 81 15

Email: peter.domini@stenagotthard.se

 

Sustainable Project Management

 

Mr J. Hugh Faulkner

Executive Chairman

Sustainable Project Management

Geneva Executive Centre

Ch des Anemones 11-13

1219 Chatelaine

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (26) 925 8000

Fax: +41 (26) 925 9500

Email: spm.jhf@bluewin.ch

 

Sydkraft SAKAB AB

 

Mr Stig Wikström

Special Projects

Sydkraft SAKAB AB

SE-692 85 Kumla

Sweden

Tel: +46 (19) 305 100

Fax: +46 (19) 577 027

Email: stig.wikstrom@sydkraft.se

 

Thermopower Process Technology Pty Ltd

 

Mr Christos Eleftheriades

Thermopower Process Technology Pty Ltd

PO Box 333

Olifantsfontein 1655

South Africa

Tel: +011 316-1800

Fax: +011 316-4999

Email: nickt@thermopower.co.za

www.thermopower.co.za

 

Tredi (New Zealand) Ltd

 

Mr Boyne Drummond

Tredi (New Zealand) Ltd

10 Burret Avenue, Penrose

Auckland

New Zealand

Tel: +649 525 1550

Fax: +649 525 3550

Email: bhd@xtra.co.nz

 

Trédi S.A.

Séché Global Solutions

 

Mr Edwin Coppens

Directeur du Développement International.

Trédi S.A.

Rue de Mogador 33

75009 Paris

France

Tel: +33 6 1631 7579

Fax: +33 1 5321 5354

Email: e.coppens@tredi.com

 

Mr Michael Smeets

Director International

Trédi S.A.

Rue de Mogador 33

75009 Paris

France

Tel: +33 1 5321 5353

Fax: +33 1 5321 5354

Email: m.smeets@tredi.com

 

Mr Richard Thompson

 

Environmental & Waste Management Consultant

Via Mazzini 106

Viterbo 01100

Italy

Mob: +393 408768872

Tel: +390 761 326181

Fax: +390 761 326181

Email: richard@the-glen.fsbusiness.co.uk

 

USWAG

 

Mr Jim Roewer

Executive Director

USWAG

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington 20170

United States of America

Tel: +1 202 564 5645

Fax: +1 202 508 5150

Email: jim.roewer@uswag.org

 

Valorec Services AG

 

Mr Werner Wagner

Valorec Services AG

Postfach 118

Basel 4019

Switzerland

Tel: +41 79 770 1571

Fax: +41 61 468 8660

Email: Werner.wagner@valorec.com

 

V.V.G. GmbH & Co KG

 

Mr Christian Reppekus

V.V.G. GmbH & Co KG

Konrad-Zuse-Str 10

42551 Velbert

Germany

Tel: +49 2052 2836 0

Fax: +49 2052 2836 25

Email: reppekus@vvg.biz

 

Mr José Diaz

V.V.G. Gmbh & Co KG

Konrad-Zuse-Str 10

42551 Velbert

Germany

Tel: +49 2052 2836 0

Fax: +49 2052 2836 25

Email: diaz@vvg.biz

 

Mr Roland Weber

 

Environmental Consultant

Ulmenstr. 3

73035 Goeppingen

Germany

Tel: +49 7161 506 669

Email: roland.weber10@epost.de

 

ZCCM Investments Holdings Plc

 

Mr Cyril Lukeke

Environmental Officer

ZCCM Investments Holdings Plc

Investments House, Kantanta Street

Kalulushi

Zambia

Tel: +260 2 245155

Fax: +260 2 245365/364

Email: lukekec@zccm-ih.com.zm

 

Z.E.R.O. Japan Co. Ltd

 

Mr Hiroshi Ohbayashi

Z.E.R.O. Japan Co. Ltd

1-26-2, Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-Ku

Tokyo 163-0558

Japan

Tel: +81 3 3371 7220

Fax: +81 3 3345 0995

Email: ohbayashi@zero-japan.co.jp


 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT BANKS   

 

Arctic Council Action Programme (ACAP)

 

Mr Robert S. Dyer

Chairman

Arctic Council Action Programme (ACAP)

U.S. Enviornmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave

Nw. Washington D.C. 20004

United States of America

Tel: +1 202 564 6113

Fax: +1 202 565 2409

Email: dyer.bob@epa.gov

 

European Bank for Reconstruction & Development (EBRD)

 

Mr Dariusz Prasek

Head, Operational Support, Environment Department

European Bank for Reconstruction & Development (EBRD)

One Exchange Square

London EC2A 2JN

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7338 6873

Fax: +44 20 7338 6848

Email: prasekd@ebrd.com

 

FMO – Netherlands Finance for Development Company

 

Mr Alwin Kool

Environmental Specialist

FMO – Netherlands Finance for Development Company

Anna van Saksenlaan 71

PO Box 93060

2509AB The Hague

Netherlands

Tel: +31(0) 70 314 9734

Fax: +31(0) 70 314 9764

Email: a.kool@fmo.nl

 

Global Environment Facility

 

Mr Laurent Granier

Program Manager, POPs

Global Environment Facility

1818H Street, NW, MSN G6 602

Washington DC 20433

United States of America

Tel: +1 202 363 7354

Fax: +1 202 522 3240

Email: lgranier@TheGEF.org    

 

Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO)

 

Mr Husamuddin Ahmadzai

Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO)

PO Box 249, Fabianinkatu 34

FIN-00171, Helsinki

Finland

Tel: +358-9-18001

Fax: +358-9-630976

Email: husamuddin.ahmadzai@nefco.fi

 

Secretariat of the Basel Convention

 

Mr Andreas Arlt

Associate Programme Officer

Secretariat of the Basel Convention

15 Chemin des Anemones

1219 Chatelaine, Geneva

Switzerland

Email: andreas.arlt@unep.ch

Tel: +41 22 917 8364

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: andreas.arlt@unep.ch

 

Mr Vincent Jugault

Programme Officer

Secretariat of the Basel Convention

15 Chemin des Anemones

1219 Chatelaine, Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8223

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: jugaultv@unep.ch

 

Mr Nelson Sabogal

Senior Programme Officer

Secretariat of the Basel Convention

15 Chemin des Anemones

1219 Chatelaine, Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8212

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: nelson.sabogal.@unep.ch

http://www.basel.int

 

Mr Ibrahim Shafii

Programme Officer

Secretariat of the Basel Convention

15 Chemin des Anemones

1219 Chatelaine, Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8636

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: ibrahim.shafii@unep.ch

 

Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention

 

Mr David Ogden

Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention

11-13 Chemin des Anemones

1219 Chatelaine, Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8190

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: dogden@chemicals.unep.ch

 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

 

Mr Olivier Kervella

Chief, Dangerous Goods & Special Cargoes Section Transport

UNECE

Palais des Nations, 1211Geneva Switzerland

Tel: +41 (22) 917 2456

Fax: +41 (22) 917 0039

Email: olivier.kervella@unece.org

 

Ms Catherine Masson

Scientific Affairs Officer

Transport Division

UNECE

Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (22) 917 2356

Fax: +41 (22) 917 0039

Email: catherine.masson@unece.org

 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

 

Mr Garislav Chkolenok

Senior Scientific Affairs Officer

Chemicals Unit, United Nations Environment Programme

Maison Internationale de  l`Environnement

11-13, chemin des Anémones

CH - 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva  Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8189

Fax: +41 22 797 3460

Email: gshkolenokk@unep.ch

 

Ms Heidelore Fiedler

Scientific Affairs Officer

Chemicals Unit, United Nations Environment Programme

Maison Internationale de  l`Environnement

11-13, chemin des Anémones

CH - 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva
Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8187

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: hfiedler@unep.ch

 

Mr Matthew Gubb

Consultant

Chemicals Unit, United Nations Environment Programme

Maison Internationale de  l`Environnement

11-13, chemin des Anémones

CH - 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva
Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8200

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: mgubb@chemicals.unep.ch

 

Ms Krisztina Kiss

Project Manager

Chemicals Unit, United Nations Environment Programme

Maison Internationale de  l`Environnement

11-13, chemin des Anémones

CH - 1219 Châtelaine
Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8518

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: kkiss@chemicals.unep.ch

 

Mr Frank Moser

Intern

Chemicals Unit, United Nations Environment Programme

Maison Internationale de  l`Environnement

11-13, chemin des Anémones

CH - 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8487

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: fmoser@chemicals.unep.ch

 

Mr Takehiro Nakamura

POPs Programme Officer

Division of GEF Coordination

United Nations Environment Programme

PO Box 30552

Nairobi

Kenya

Tel: +254-20-623886

Fax: +254-20-623140

Email: takehiro.nakamura@unep.org

 

Mr David Piper

Division of GEF Coordination

United Nations Environment Programme

Maison Internationale de  l`Environnement

11-13, chemin des Anémones

CH - 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8345

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: dpiper@chemicals.unep.ch

 

Mr John Whitelaw

Deputy Director

Chemicals Unit, United Nations Environment Programme

Maison Internationale de  l`Environnement

11-13, chemin des Anémones

CH - 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8360

Fax: +41 22 797 3454

Email: jwhitelaw@unep.ch

 

Mr James B. Willis

Director

Chemicals Unit, United Nations Environment Programme

Maison Internationale de  l`Environnement

11-13, chemin des Anémones

CH - 1219 Châtelaine, Geneva

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 917 8183

Fax:  +41 22 797 3460

Email:  jwillis@unep.ch

 

United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO)

 

Mr Zoltan Csizer

Special Adviser

UNIDO

Wagramer Str 5

1220 Vienna

Austria

Tel: +43 1 26026/3895

Fax: +43 1 26026/6819

Email: Z.Csizer@unido.org

 

 

 

United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)

 

Mr Craig Boljkovac

Programme Coordinator, POPs Programme

UNITAR

Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva Switzerland

Tel: +41 (22) 917 8524

Fax: +41 (22) 917 8047

Email: craig.boljkovac@unitar.org

 

Mr John Haines

Senior Special Fellow, POPs Programme

UNITAR

Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva Switzerland

Tel: +41 (22) 917 8524

Fax: +41 (22) 917 8047

Email: hainesj@eurospan.com

 

World Bank

 

Mr Murray Newton

Consultant - Montreal Protocol/POPs Unit

World Bank

Mail Stop MC4-419, 1818 'H' Street NW

20433 Washington, DC

United States of America

Tel: +1 202 473 9013

Fax: +1 202 522 3258

Email: mnewton@worldbank.org


 

NON-GOVERNMENTAL AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

 

Arnika Association

 

Mr Jindrich Petrlik

Vice Chairman

Arnika Association

Chlumova 17

130 00 Prague 3

Czech Republic

Tel: +420 222 781 471

Fax: +420 222 781 471

Email: jindrich.petrlik@arnika.org

 

 

Croatian Cleaner Production Centre

 

Mr Goran Romac

Project Manager

Croatian Cleaner Production Centre

Savska c.

41/IV 10000 Zagreb

Croatia

Tel: +385 (1) 6311 999

Fax: +385 (1) 6176 734

Email: goran.romac@apo.hr

 

 

ECOTOX  NGO

 

Mr Artak Khachatryan

Member

EcoTox NGO

1 A Kievyan Street, Apt.30

375028 Yerevan

Republic of Armenia

Tel: +374 1 27 34 66

Email: ecotoxart@yahoo.com

 

EURITS

 

Mr Mike Hale

EURITS

1 Millbank

London SW1 P3JZ

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7 222 1265

Fax: +44 20 7 222 1250

Email: mike.hale@central-lobby.co.uk.

 

 

 

 

 

Global Chemical Safety Programme

 

Mr Jack Weinberg

Director, Global Chemical Safety Prog.

Environmental Health Fund

407 South Dearborn, Suite 1775, 6065 Chicago, IL

United States of America

Tel: +1 312 566 9314

Fax: +1 312 408 0682

Email: jackwein@uic.edu

 

 

Greenpeace International

 

Ms Pat Costner

Senior Science Advisor

Greenpeace International

P.O. Box 548, Eureka Springs

AR 72632

United States of America

Tel: +1-479-253-8440

Fax: +1-479-253-5540

Email: pcostner@dialb.greenpeace.org

 

 

Trust for Free PCB Elimination

 

Ms Tatjana Hancke

Trust for Free PCB Elimination

Frankfurt

Germany

Tel: +49 69 1330 6993

Fax: +49 69 13306993

Email: info@free-pcb-elimination.org


 

ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH

           

Ecole Polytechnique Federale Lausanne

 

Mr Luiz F. De Alencastro

Senior Scientist

Ecole Polytechnique Federale Lausanne

Lab. Chimie Environmentale Exotoxicologie, Enac-Iste-Cecotox, Bat.Gr 1015 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 (21) 693 27 29

Fax: +41 (21) 693 57 60

Email: felippe.dealencastro@epfl.ch

 

Ekotoxikologicke centrum Bratislava sro

Mr Martin Murin

Ekotoxikologicke centrum Bratislava sro

Nadrazna 36

900 28 Ivanka prl Dunaji

Slovak Republic

Tel: +421 2 459 43712

Fax: +421 2 459 45223

Email: etcba@gtinet.sk

 

Recetox-Tocoen & Associates

 

Prof. Mr Ivan Holoubek

Director

Recetox-Tocoen & Associates

Kamenice 126/3, 625 00 Brno

Czech Republic

Tel: +420.549 494 457

Fax: +420.549 492 842

Email: holoubek@recetox.muni.cz

 

The Council for PALDANG Water Quality Policy

 

Ms Kyungmin Kim

The Council for PALDANG Water Quality Policy

316-10 Gongheung-Ri, Yangpyeong

Yangpyeong-Gun

Qyonggi-Do 476 880

Korea

Tel: +82 31 770 2952

Fax: +82 31 770 2954

Email: kmkim@paldang.or.kr

 

University of Auckland

 

Mr Ron McDowall

Director

International Centre for Sustainability Engineering & Research

University of Auckland

Private Bag 92019

Auckland

New Zealand

Tel: +649 2381862

Fax: +649 2381862

Email: r.mcdowall@auckland.ac.nz

 

University of Melbourne

 

Mr Ian D. Rae

16 Bates Drive, Williamstown

VIC 3016

Australia

Tel: +61 3 9397 3794

Fax: +61 3 9397 3794

Email: idrae@unimelb.edu.au

 

Yonsei University in Korea

 

Ms Yeshin Kim

Yonsei University in Korea

134 Shinchom Seodaemon

Seoul

Korea

Tel: +82 2 361 5371

Fax: +82 2 392 0239

Email: kyessh@hanmail.net

 

 

 

  

CHAIRMAN &  FACILITATOR

 

Mr John Buccini

31 Sycamore Drive

Ottawa

Ontario  K2H 6R4

Canada

Tel: +1 (613) 828-7667

Fax: +1 (815) 352-4253

Email: jbuccini@sympatico.ca