Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholders Forum - Windsor, Canada

May 15 2003
Integration Workgroup
North American Toxics – One Continent, No Borders

Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), welcomed participants to the Integration Workgroup meeting. He expressed the intent of the Integration Workgroup as helping to advance the goals of and overcome the challenges confronting the Substance Workgroups, and noted the importance of constructive dialogue between the Substance Workgroups and the Integration Workgroup. To that end, Gary advised that the Integration Workgroup would be seeking advice from the Substance Workgroups on how it might assist them.

Danny Epstein, Regional Director, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada, also welcomed participants to the meeting. He reinforced Gary’s remarks, and commented on the emerging opportunities for linkages and collaboration identified at the May 12 2003 Sound Management of Chemicals (SMOC) Workgroup meeting. Danny also emphasized the opportunities for the exchange of information between the GLBTS, and the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), SMOC Workgroup.

Surname First Name Organization
Abel Tom Chlorine Chemistry Council
Ailor David American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
Bailey Bob Bailey Associates
Brauer Sue Rodenbeck USEPA Region 5, WPTD
Brown Timothy Delta Institute
Cain Alexis USEPA / Region 5
Cantrill Jim Lake Superior Binational Program
De Ken Environment Canada
Dove Alice Environment Canada
Epstein Danny Environment Canada
Gulezian Gary USEPA / Great Lakes National Program Office
Hogg Darryl Environment Canada, Contractor
Hopkins Dan USEPA
Hopkins Stephen USEPA, Lake Superior Team
Jackson John Great Lakes United, Citizens’ Network on Waste Management
Jones Allan Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee (C4)
Kent Ross Stelco, Inc.
Krauel Robert Environment Canada
Kuper George Council of Great Lakes Industries
Lipman Zoe National Wildlife Federation
Lopes Edwina Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Marsden John Environment Canada
Martig Tony USEPA / Great Lakes National Program Office
Mathrani Varsha National Wildlife Federation
McKenzie James McKenzieParis
Menkedick John Battelle
Michajluk Shawn Environment Canada
Mylleville Bailey Great Lakes United
Nameth Susan Environment Canada
Newman Erin USEPA
Phenicie Dale Council of Great Lakes Industries
Phillips E. Marie USEPA
Shariff Fatima McKenzieParis
Sherman Keith Severn Sound Environmental Association
Simon Rob Chlorine Chemistry Council
Smith Ted USEPA
Strader Evelyn Council of Great Lakes Industries
Thomas Amy Battelle
Tseng Tom Environment Canada
Waffle Alan Environment Canada
Wong Anita Environment Canada
Yang Cindy Environment Canada
Yang Karen Environment Canada

Stakeholder Updates

A participant reinforced the Strategy’s ability to facilitate information exchange, within the Substance Workgroup meetings and the Stakeholder Forum. The participant noted that this ability was one of the key strengths of the Strategy.

A participant inquired about data presented at the Stakeholder Forum and whether it was accessible to the public, and further suggested that the Integration Workgroup address the issue of data management at a future meeting.

A participant expressed a view that having someone from the USEPA or Environment Canada speak to the issue of risk management and assessment regarding new and emerging substances of concern would be beneficial.

A poster highlighting the Great Lakes Management Plan will be released shortly. The poster identifies means by which individuals can reduce the use of toxics in their home.

Several participants noted the potential benefit of having a representative from the Agriculture Sector address the Integration Group at a future meeting. Attendance at future Substance Workgroup meetings should also be encouraged.

Participants were advised that the USEPA now requires all reported data to be appropriately cited.

The GLBTS will be hosting an expert’s workshop in September 2003 on the long-range transport (LRT) of substances. Details will be released shortly.

Reporting on Achievements and Challenges

Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Workgroup
Co-Chairs: Ken De, Environment Canada, and Tony Martig, USEPA

Twelve stakeholders attended the PCB Workgroup meeting including representation from the Utilities Sector, Stelco Inc., Auto Manufacturers, the Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI), the USEPA, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and others. Alice Dove presented her findings from studies of sediments deposited in the Great Lakes over the last thirty years. Of particular note, she reported that a sample collected thirty years ago revealed 130 ppb of PCBs, whereas a sample taken recently from the same area revealed only 40 ppb of PCBs. She cautioned that the deposition from the former sample likely remains and has been covered by deposition from the more resent and cleaner sediment. Alice advised that her research will continue for several more years, and expressed a willingness to report to the Integration Workgroup with her subsequent findings.

The Workgroup next discussed means by which to involve the Utilities Sector in PCB phase out. Reluctance on the part of the Utilities Sector to phase out PCBs is attributed in part to regulatory confusion and resources associated with testing costs. The PCB Workgroup is planning to promote the economic and environmental benefits of phasing out PCBs, and has also initiated a Recognition and Awards Program. Four companies will be recognized for their PCB reduction achievements at the next Integration Workgroup meeting in Toronto. The PCB Workgroup is looking to work with Insurance Companies on an incentive program to encourage the proactive reduction of PCB use. The Workgroup is also planning to lobby for inclusion in ISO 14000 the elimination of PCBs as a condition for recognition under the ISO. These discussions are still in the preliminary stages and are subject to ISO cooperation.

A challenge that continues to confront the Workgroup is identifying PCB concentrations on a lake-by-lake basis in the Basin. Data is currently available only by province or by sector. The Workgroup noted that the Integration Workgroup could assist in the retrieval of such data, possibly through a joint initiative with Lakewide Area Management Plans (LaMPs). Finally, the Workgroup concluded its meeting by remarking that the Integration Workgroup might also assist the Workgroup by playing a coordinating role to involve different sectors and other Workgroups with the work of the PCB Workgroup, particularly in the area of information exchange.

Questions and Comments

At a previous PCB Workgroup meeting, a participant expressed difficulty in identifying whether the plant at which they worked was releasing PCBs. What can be done to assist companies who wish to ascertain such information? Ken responded that PCB audits can help identify the presence of PCBs in plants and that the Workgroup is in the process of planning to provide such a service through cooperative efforts with the USEPA and Environment Canada.

It was suggested that activities could be better coordinated with LaMPs by posting reports and information at one location, (i.e., a central web site), rather than on individual web sites.

Ken emphasized that eliminating the remaining uses of PCBs is proving to be much more difficult than initially anticipated, and suggested that a possible approach to surmount that challenge would be involving new participants in the activities of the Workgroup.

To that end, Ken suggested the development of a GLBTS strategy to identify that broader audience and encourage them to participate in the GLBTS. The Integration Workgroup could possibly take the lead on such an initiative by designing a campaign to attract other sectors and participants.

A participant asked if there had been any interaction or discussion with Insurance Companies, and whether a business case has been made to those companies. Ken advised that the Workgroup is in the process of discussing strategies with the TELUS Institute regarding insurance initiatives. He further noted that the Workgroup has thus far only identified those sectors with the highest PCB use/users and/or with the most storage sites. He suggested holding a workshop to educate industry on the dangers of PCB use and storage. Moreover, he advised, sectors can be targeted through industry organizations.

A participant representing the LaMPs advised that the LaMPs are facing the same difficulties and challenge to implement plans given their dependence on grants and funding for information transfer.

Dioxins and Furans Workgroup
Co-Chairs: Erin White, USEPA, and Anita Wong, Environment Canada

The Dioxin and Furan Workgroup remains concerned with the accuracy of available data, noting the possibility that as much as 50% of dioxin emissions may not be accounted for in reported data. The Workgroup, therefore, is relying on three sources of data for dioxin/furan emissions on the American side: TRI, RAPIDS, and the National Dioxin Inventory. Unfortunately the three inventories do not correlate well with each other. The Workgroup is expecting a complete and comprehensive inventory from the USEPA later this year that will assist it in more accurately reporting dioxin trends.

At its May 14 2003 meeting, the Workgroup noted that there remains a need to discuss the effects of dioxins and furans from sources outside of the Great Lakes Basin and to examine their effects on the Basin. It also discussed ash management and boiler projects. Steve Shaw explained that different levels of dioxins are released from different types of incinerators used in Ontario. Abby Jarka provided an update on the boiler project. The Workgroup was also advised that the USEPA national program is searching for a landfill site from which to draw dioxin samples.

During its deliberations, the Workgroup proposed collaborating with other Workgroups to target sectors in a multi pollutant approach as an alternative to targeting specific substances. It is believed that the sectoral approach might work better in engaging Industry to participate in toxic reduction processes.

Questions and Comments

Several participants noted the need to make a connection with the Agriculture Sector and invite its involvement in GLBTS toxic substance reduction activities. In that regard, the Workgroup invited interest from other Workgroups to explore approaching the Sector. It was noted that a clear message must be developed with which to approach the Sector. Moreover, the Agriculture Sector is large and diverse, and will require the GLBTS to identify a smaller subset to target. In that regard, lessons learned from the municipal sector pilot project can be applied in developing such an approach.

A participant noted that unreported dioxin emissions (upwards of 50%) result primarily from uncontrolled combustion.

The Food Industry is also interested in dioxin emissions. Environment Canada was contacted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency upon the discovery of high levels of dioxins in animals the latter was monitoring. Danny Epstein noted that the Sustainable Agriculture division of Agriculture Canada is considering issues of environmental farming and is encouraging farmers to adopt practices that minimize the use of and effects of chemicals. He suggested identifying opportunities for the Dioxin and Furan Workgroup to collaborate with the sustainable agriculture project both in Canada and the United States. Danny was also interested in learning about how the Severn Sound Environmental Association (SSEA) is addressing the large rural community of its member municipalities. It was suggested that Agriculture Canada be invited to the September Integration Workgroup meeting to present its strategy and discuss how the GLBTS might become involved. A caution was noted that the Agriculture Canada strategy is based on national priorities and may not therefore reflect the GLBTS scope and its objectives.

Building on the previous discussion, participants formed an agriculture task group to discuss GLBTS relations with the agriculture community. The task group consists of Ted Smith, Alan Waffle, Dale Phenicie, David Ailor, Zoe Lipman, Ken De, and Susan Nameth. It will report to the Integration Workgroup at its September meeting.

In closing, a participant suggested collaborating with voluntary groups to discuss issues of common concern, noting however that such groups may find it difficulty to direct a targeted approach toward the Great Lakes Basin when most have national priorities.

Benzo(a)Pyrene Hexachlorobenzene (B(a)P/HCB) Workgroup
Co-Chairs: Tom Tseng, Environment Canada, and Steve Rosenthal, USEPA

Reporting on the May 14 2003 Workgroup meeting, participants were advised that the Workgroup remains concerned about the accuracy of the data and inventories it is receiving from its United States and Canadian partners, noting that it is awaiting updated inventories. Moreover, to make further emissions reductions, the Workgroup identified the need to involve the Pesticide Sector in its initiatives. It is also planning to discuss B(a)P/HCB reduction strategies with the Canadian Motor Vehicle Association.

The U.S. Rubber Association gave a presentation at the Workgroup meeting and discussed how scrap tire lots have become breeding grounds for the West Nile Virus. The Workgroup, in response, expressed an interest in conducting Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping exercises to locate these lots. It is also desirous of committing resources to creating incentives for recyclers to salvage the tire lots. The Workgroup is also planning to create a best practices guide and is seeking resources to fund such an initiative.

Building on the success of the wood stove initiative with Natural Resource Canada, the Workgroup is seeking input form the Integration Workgroup on means by which to improve its wood stove educational program and workshops.

Tom echoed comments on the need to look at specific sectors that release more then one chemical substance. He also noted that the challenges and barriers confronting other Workgroups are also confronting the B(a)P/HCB Workgroup, and sought opportunities to collaborate with other Workgroups in that regard. Finally, Tom reported that the Workgroup would like to increase industry representation at its meetings.

Questions and Comments

An industry representative apologized for the lack of representation from industry at Workgroup meetings and suggested that, when seeking to involve industry, attention must focus on what will be of interest to it. It was further noted that the absence of participation by industry is less a lack of interest but rather a lack of available resources.

It was noted that HCB inventories have been dominated by emissions from trash burning. Back yard burning accounted for approximately 600 pounds, and industrial sources accounted for approximately 500-1000 pounds.

Pesticide application is still a problem for B(a)P/HCB release. The Workgroup is attempting to secure more accurate pesticide release inventories, but is facing difficulty in doing so.

Mercury Workgroup
 Co-Chairs: Alexis Cain, USEPA, and Bob Krauel, Environment Canada

An active and diverse group of participants attended the Mercury Workgroup May 14 2003 meeting. The subject of environmental monitoring and research attracted many academia and scientists.

It was noted that the Workgroup has contributed to the Canada-wide Standards initiative and the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC) on mercury issues. It has also been able to identify and address areas not considered by other groups at the national level (i.e., dental sector, scrap metals).

Challenges continuing to confront the Workgroup include:

In closing, participants were advised that the Workgroup is now facing the question of when to declare success, and how to retain interest among those whose interests are in broad mercury issues and those who maintain more focused interests.

Communications Strategy – Crosswalk with LaMP activities
 E. Marie Phillips, USEPA

The Integration Workgroup has initiated a study to enhance opportunities for collaboration among the GLBTS Workgroups and the LaMPs, with the following threefold objectives:

  1. identify common priorities among GLBTS Workgroup and LaMPs.
  2. identify how LaMPs can facilitate the transfer of technologies and technical data, outreach, and communications, and how GLBTS can provide support to LaMPs.
  3. identify four to five projects with good potential for technical transfer and diffusion throughout the Great Lakes Basin.

The need to identify linkages between the two processes was identified at the May 2002 Integration Workgroup meeting. Feedback from that meeting was used to produce a draft communications strategy. Participants were asked to provide feedback on means by which to improve the Strategy. A chart listing critical pollutants (mercury, PCBs, dioxin/furans, B(a)P/HCB, pesticides, and OCS for both the LaMPs (Superior, Michigan, Ontario, and Erie), and the GLBTS was developed to identify common areas of concern. Similar charts probing about barriers and stakeholder roles and actions were also developed. The draft charts will be circulated to LaMPs and GLBTS Workgroups for input. This will be followed by a conference call to discuss the Integration Workgroup’s role and the means by which the GLBTS can assist with this initiative.

Questions and Comments

A participant noted that the use of similar charts would be a good tool for the GLBTS to identify commonalities between its own Workgroups and opportunities for collaboration among them.

Municipal Toxics Management Strategy – Progress Report
 A Municipal Pilot with the Severn Sound Environmental Association
Keith Sherman

The Severn Sound Environmental Association (SSEA) was formed to complete the remedial action of this former Area of Concern (AOC) and the eight municipalities that comprise the Severn Sound region of Ontario. SSEA efforts have been successful in having the region de-listed as an AOC.

Severn Sound is largely agricultural with pockets of urban development. The area housed heavy industry in the early 1900s and more recently has attracted high tech industries, metal platting, specialty tool and dye makers, optics manufacturers, and plastic industries. Recently, tourism has become a prominent industry given the access to marinas and other water-based activities.

SSEA and the GLBTS have partnered on an initiative wherein SSEA will:

An inventory has being collected on most Level I substances over the last few years and has helped in strategizing a phase-out activity. Mercury concentration in walleye fish, as well as, PCB concentrations in carp have significantly decreased in the last twenty years. A study of carp in 1999 revealed that even very large carp have PCB concentrations below the consumption limit and any size carp can now be eaten from the Severn Sound region.

The region also has nine sewage plants totaling a sewage flow of 30,500 m³/d and generating 30,000 cubic metres of biosolids for farmland spreading each year. Industrial discharge goes directly to sanitary sewers. SSEA found it prudent to involve the farming and agriculture communities to ensure that biosolids were only applied on approved sites. SSEA has also determined that a communications protocol is needed to coordinate work with the LaMPs in the region.

Keith concluded by advising participants that municipal staff are being contacted for information concerning:

Questions and Comments

A question was posed about the source for sediment data in Ontario. The group was advised that the provincial Ministry of the Environment provides sediment data for the Ontario region.

The Severn Sound Remedial Action Plan Stage III is now available for participants to read. <www.severnsound.ca>

Keith advised that SSEA’s next step is to develop a sustainable development plan relying on the Melbourne Principles.

A question was posed about SSEA’s funding. Participants were advised that Environment Canada provides base funding for major monitoring and remedial initiatives. Other departments provide funding for individual projects.

A participant asked if member municipalities were considering by-laws to restrict development in the area. Keith responded that SSEA municipalities are prepared to make official amendments to policies, by-laws, certificates of approval, and water protection strategies to protect the area from inappropriate development.

A participant asked about the visibility of the organization in the community. Keith responded that reports from SSEA are regularly sent to member municipalities informing them about projects and work plans. An ongoing public advisory committee meets monthly and has developed a web site <www.severnsound.ca> which serves as a focal point for those in the community interested in SSEA activities. Moreover, articles about SSEA appear in local newspapers, and there is a regular posting of public advisory committee meetings and minutes in these newspapers.

A participant asked if there was a gap between the need for pollution prevention and what SSEA still needs to do in terms of educating member municipalities about that need. Keith responded that, over the short term, SSEA has been able to provide direction to member municipalities in terms of what they need to do regarding pollution prevention. There remains however a need to educate members about the ramifications of postponing pollution prevention activities. The smaller member municipalities often lack the capacity to implement pollution prevention initiatives thereby raising the need for integrated and stronger inter-municipal approaches.

A participant asked if SSEA had collected any data on dioxin releases. Keith advised that SSEA has not collected any dioxin samples from runoff, but would like to do so in the future.

A participant suggested that the GLBTS organize to present to the mayors around the Basin at their next meeting informing them about the pilot project initiative. Danny Epstein encouraged such information sharing and encouraged Keith to make presentations to educate others. A conference of municipalities is being organized in Chicago next year and might offer a good opportunity to present the pilot since, by that time, SSEA will have more concrete results.

Draft Substance Consideration Process
 Ted Smith, USEPA

The draft substance consideration process being proposed addresses both current Level I substances and potential new Level I substances. The process will assess a substance for the purpose of determining its priority and, consequently, whether it should be added to the GLBTS’s list of Level I substance. Feedback from this discussion as well as discussions over the summer months will be used to refine the process.

The process will rely on existing processes — CEPA, UNEP, CEC, PBTI, UNECE and PTS Level II nomination processes — for considering and evaluating substances thereby enabling the GLBTS to forego conducting its own comprehensive risk assessments. The USEPA or Environment Canada will also be able to propose substances that do not appear in existing processes thereby allowing for flexibility.

Upon a substance being selected to go through the chemical nomination process, various criteria will be applied to assess whether that substance will be submitted to the Binational Executive Committee (BEC) or referred to another program. Only those substances that have sufficient monitoring data and are of regional concern to multiple Lakes within the Great Lakes Basin will be considered. Moreover, the GLBTS must have the ability to effect reductions of the substance in the Basin.

Government program representatives, LaMP leads, and a several stakeholders have reviewed the draft consideration process. The GLBTS desires broad stakeholder input from the Integration Workgroup and will present a revised draft at the September meeting. It is intended that the process will be in place by December 2003.

Questions and Comments

With reference to the draft process flow diagram, a suggestion was made to merge the top two boxes. If the boxes are not merged, the participant continued, then guarantees must be given that substances will not be arbitrarily brought to the attention of GLBTS.

A participant asked about emerging chemicals of concern that were presented by Jim Maguire at the May 14 2003 Stakeholder Forum and whether those chemicals would fit into the consideration process. Ted responded that several national programs are looking at those substances and conducting research to generate the information that GLBTS would require to conduct an assessment.

A participant asked if the consideration process being created was to produce a new Level I list, particularly as the GLBTS approaches 2006. Ted responded that this could be a possible outcome of the process and would also help in responding to Binational Executive Committee (BEC) questions about the GLBTS vision beyond 2006.

While only those substances with existing monitoring data will be considered in the draft process, a participant asked about options in those cases were no specific monitoring data exists. Moreover, the participant asked how long the GLBTS would be prepared to wait for institutions to generate criteria and conduct analysis on new substances. Ted responded that those issues must be examined in more detail.

Posing a hypothetical scenario of four substances identified and prioritized equally by the draft process, a participant asked which would be sent to BEC, and suggested, in turn, that a quantified risk assessment would help make this decision. Ted responded that a risk assessment would be unnecessary in such a case since the GLBTS would recommend all four substances to BEC.

Danny Epstein commented that the GLBTS is also looking at processes that will aid in the analysis of present Level I substances. Referring to the draft process diagram, he added that the process will primarily rely, over the long-term, on the top left box for nominations since the GLBTS has no intention of creating a new nomination process.

A participant noted a reliance on national or international lists could potentially ignore early warning signs that are coming from the Great Lakes themselves, and encouraged the Integration Workgroup to include a means by which scientific data could be considered. Moreover, the merging of the top two boxes was discouraged.

Ted clarified that the challenge goals, from the U.S. perspective, are national in scope and therefore any recommendation will require the endorsement of the National Program

A participant suggested that running the current Level I substances through the protocol could help in determining whether sufficient work has been done. In that regard, the process could assist in deciding whether working on current substances should be continued or whether work new substances should be initiated. Another participant expressed the opposite view of running existing substances through the process unless there are a fewer alternative end points.

It was suggested that a mechanism be introduced to identify low priority substances that have already been looked at and that will require periodic reviews.

A participant commented that cause and affect relationships must be kept in mind and the question of what may be causing these emissions must be considered in the criteria.

Agenda Planning

The next GLBTS integration group meeting will be held in Toronto in September 2003. Suggested activities for inclusion on the agenda include:

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.