|
|
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 |
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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”
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
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
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
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
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
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 on “Useful lessons from ODS phase out for PCB-phase out”
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.
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.
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.