Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholders Forum - Chicago, Illinois


November 14, 2001
Chicago, Illinois

Introduction 

Gary Gulezian, Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office, USEPA, and Danny Epstein, Regional Director of the Environmental Protection, Environment Canada welcomed all participants to Chicago. Gary informed the group that the 2001 draft progress report is being circulated and he asked for comments on this draft to be sent comments to either the USEPA or Environment Canada by December 14, 2001. Danny noted that 2002 would mark the fifth year of the GLBTS. He emphasized that the Strategy is based on partnerships and that only through cooperation has the GLBTS been able to make progress. 

Key Note Speaker  

George Meyer, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, gave a presentation about the Wisconsin Mercury Program entitled “The Role of Eco-Partnerships and State Activities”. He described that mercury in the environment is a major concern and issue for the State of Wisconsin. As such, the State has put together a plan to address mercury emissions. The program creates partnerships to raise awareness about mercury, and its goal is to reduce emissions and releases from the home to the environment through the promotion of alternative household products, mercury recycling, and reduced potential for spills and emissions. The overall program includes the following components: 

The program partnered with local government to build wide networks with cities in Wisconsin, to form community and sectoral partnerships for mercury reduction. Community partners include Public Health, and Business Associations. Sectoral partners include Medical and Dental facilities, High schools, and Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Some examples of program initiatives include: 

George described that over 5000 pounds of mercury were collected in 1998; and from 1999–2000 an additional 2000 pounds were collected. Grants and State legislation have made this program possible. The program has fostered a sense of pride in citizens and local governments. In the future, the program will focus on the reduction of mercury in utility boilers. 

There were several questions for Mr. Mayer. Luke Trip, Environment Canada, asked if mechanisms are in place to prevent new mercury from coming back into the State, and specifically if mechanisms are in place to ensure that thermometers banned in some States are not shifted for sale in other States. George explained that the program has and continues to work with several organizations across the country to lobby the USEPA for a national ban, and that they are is also calling on National Defense to discontinue their stockpile. Gary Gulezian, USEPA, noted George’s involvement with the national quicksilver project, and asked for his advice for the GLBTS as a regional group. George suggested that efforts be focused on placing mercury higher on the agenda of national agencies through increasing mercury education initiatives, increasing reduction program profiles, and through the building of additional reduction strategies and programs. George Kuper, CGLI, inquired about the monitoring of background levels of mercury when dealing with setting reduction targets with time specifications. George explained that the program acknowledges that the impacts of mercury are global, and as such regulatory programs have many ambitious targets built in. They also, however, include accommodations such as off-ramps at each goal where operators assess the reduction progress. These off-ramps include such considerations as technological hardships or age of facilities.  

Chemical Industry HCB Review  

Joe Stearns, of the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Bob Bailey, a consultant to the CCC, and Steve Risotto, of the Halogenated Solvents Alliance, made a presentation entitled HCB Review. Bob provided a general review HCB emissions and focused on sources in the Great Lakes. He explained that HCB had been historically used as a fungicide in the USA (and elsewhere in the world), and in chemical and metal productions. He also explained that HCB is formed under many high temperature conditions where both carbon and chlorine are present, and can be transported over long ranges. Bob further explained that historic sources of HCB are believed to be contributing to current HCB levels. He provided several examples of HCB monitoring programs and their findings. Sediment samples from the mouth of the Niagara River (as representative of Lake Ontario levels) show continuous decreases in HCB levels since 1960. A monitoring station at Sturgeon Point (Lake Erie) has shown a decline (average of 5.5%) in HCB concentration from atmospheric particulates. Bob then described that a long-term Canadian Wildlife Service study reported a reduction of HCB in hearing gull eggs from the Great Lakes, a Lake Superior lake trout study which reported non-detectable concentrations of HCB in 2000, and a Lake Ontario lake trout study reported declining levels of HCB. Bob described that decreasing levels of HCB are being found in top predators; however, he noted that biomagnification has had an effect on these predators. Bob concluded his presentation by suggesting that that emissions of HCB appear to be declining, and by then emphasizing the need for continuous modeling. He also suggested that water concentrations of HCB are controlled by the atmospheric concentration in the Great Lakes. 

Next, Steve Risotto described the relationship between HCB and chlorinated substances. He described that there are several substances suspected to be significant sources of HCB, including CTC, EDC, PCE, TCE, and PCE and TCE (as a contaminant). He described that HCB has a high boiling point, low volatility, and can be captured and destroyed or reprocessed. Steve suggested that HCB emissions are released from solvent production, which now is concentrated in the southern USA. He noted that there has not been any solvent production in the Great Lakes area since 1993. Steve then described that TRI data has been previously used to quantify emissions and trends of emissions, but that fugitive emissions are also of concern. He commented that the 2000 TRI reporting threshold for HCB has dropped to 10 pounds. He noted that total of 400 pounds (180 kg) of HCB was emitted from 6 facilities in 2000. Steve briefly described the historical controls of HCB emissions. The USEPA introduced NESHAP in 1994, including subpart H on fugitive emissions, which reduced HCB emissions by an estimated by 87%. WHO IPCS and HISA both currently monitor solvent emissions. In general, Steve suggested that there is a downward trend in the level of production of HCB. 

Joe Stearns concluded the presentations by describing that regulators have been aware of the impacts of HCB emissions for some time. He suggested that a large portion of these emissions have been eliminated through HCB use bans. Joe emphasized the importance of completely understanding and regulating these sources in the future. He suggested that in the interest of the GLBTS, uncontrolled combustion might be the largest source of HCB emissions, and emphasized the importance of supporting the International POPs convention. 

There were several questions for Steve, Bob, and Joe. Andy Buchsbaum, NWF, asked about HCB hotspots, noting the recent identification of Chicago as a “hotspot”. Bob suggested that, historically, there has been very little monitoring of HCB. He described that Chicago, China, India, Russia, the Niagara River, and possibly the Trenton Channel in the Detroit River have been identified as “hotspots”. Tony Martig, USEPA, asked if Household Hazardous Waste was considered as a potential emission source. Bob suggested that data collected in Chicago appears to show that urban air is 10 times more polluted than rural air; and it is possible that HCB could be attracted to these pollutants. Danny Epstein, Environment Canada, commented that the Canadian gull egg monitoring program, which Bob referred to in his presentation, was lost for a small time in the 1980’s, but had been reinstated. Danny then asked, in regard to “hotspots”, if there were other areas where intervention should be encouraged. Bob suggested that the water flowing out of the Niagara River is three times the concentration of the levels in the Great Lakes. He suggested that additional monitoring is required. 

Pollution Probe’s MERC Switch Out Program 

Leah Hagreen, of Lourie and Love Inc., gave a presentation entitled Management Options for Automotive Mercury Switch Out: Results of MERC Switch Out Program with Pollution Probe. Leah described the use of mercury in products in Canada, the fate of mercury containing products in Canada, and the flow of mercury through the environment. She explained that mercury products in automotive equipment represent by weight 22% of mercury containing products in Canada. She also described that the mercury contained in switches and convenience lighting at the end of a vehicle’s life finds its way, via auto recycling and scrap steel, or into landfills or into electric arc furnaces and into the environment via lakes and streams.  

Leah described the voluntary switch collection program with automobile dismantlers piloted by Pollution Probe. The program worked to develop partnerships with eleven dismantlers, automobile manufactures, and steel and mercury recyclers and to establish the infrastructure necessary to support the program. She also described that the program covers the cost of transport and recycling. Leah described the many challenges that the program has endured. She noted that the automobile dismantling industry is fragmented and unregulated, and that there was no model to support collection, no infrastructure to support transportation and recycling, and that no effective mechanisms existed for the closed loop recycling or retirement of mercury.  Despite these challenges, Leah reported that the program has been successful and has collected over 2500 switches. 

Next, Leah described the many policy options considered by the program. These include: voluntary collection and support, a bounty on switch collection, extended producer responsibility, emission standards for EAFs, and trading or offsets of mercury emissions. She explained that the program had selected the bounty option, and provided cost estimates of this option, which favored a $1.00 per switch bounty. 

Leah concluded by describing the next steps of the program. Phase two calls for an Ontario expansion, and for the piloting of the project in another area of Canada. Phase three is a Canada-wide expansion of this program. Leah suggested that any mercury policy adopted must be comprehensive and that a regulatory backdrop will be required to achieve their desired results. She described that the policy recommendations of this project are transferable to other products. 

There were several questions for Leah. Brad May, Environment Canada, asked about the amount of labour required to remove switches from cars. Convenience lighting switch removal takes about 2 minutes, and anti-lock break systems require 5-20 minutes for removal. Leah described that anti-lock switch is heavy, is expensive to ship, and is removed at the recycler. Janet Pellegrini, USEPA, inquired about offsets in relationship to trading. Leah acknowledged that there might be opposition to trading, but suggested that it provides opportunities to eliminate mercury before regulation. Bill Novak, GLU, commented that GLU would support a phase out of new uses of mercury in automobiles. George Kuper, CGLI, inquired about the inclusion of mercury in batteries. He suggested that most manufacturers have not made mercury-containing products in 10 years. He commented that although organizations have been lobbying for EPR regulations, what are needed are more programs similar to the Pollution Probe’s program. Leah cautioned that, if adopted, EPR should not mean that automobile manufacturers buy up auto dismantlers, rather that auto manufactures should take responsibility and remove switches from vehicles. Julie Rosenback, USPEA, asked if the end of the life of vehicles is only time to remove mercury switches. Leah explained that removal at other times is cost prohibitive. 

Western Lake Superior Sanitary District 

Joe Stepun, of the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, gave a presentation entitled Western Lake Superior Sanitary District: Expanding the Campaign. Joe described the origin of the burn barrel campaign. The WLSSD has been involved in many projects to reduce dioxins and furans, including a 1992 Kraft Land application project, a 1992 MWC emission study, and a 1995 the Zero Discharge Pilot Project. In 1999 the WLSSD became involved with the GLBTS and the Regional Burn Barrel Campaign. Joe described that the prevalence of burn barrels was initially unknown, and that emission rates of dioxins/furans were also unknown. The emerging picture of burn barrel indicates that 20-30% of WLSSD households used burn barrels, and that this level may be higher elsewhere. Joe also described that the USEPA has reclassified the burn barrel emission of dioxins/furans as a higher priority. Burn barrel use has been banned in some jurisdictions; however, enforcement is often minimal and inconsistent. He described some of the challenges in discontinuing the use of burn barrels. These include the lack of ban enforcement, the perception of the ban as an infringement of personal rights, and the lack of political advantage associated with the introduction of a ban. He emphasized the need to alter the behavior of individuals. 

Next, Joe described the burn barrel advertisement campaign. The process of selecting the current two versions of the posters took several iterations. Posters and a video advertisement were shown. Joe concluded his presentation by describing that a grant from GLNPO will permit the burn barrel campaign to continue its outreach, potentially creating a basis for a national/international campaign. Doug Fairchild, the Environmental Coordinator of the WLSSD, can be reached at (218) 722-3336 ext. 334 or at www.wlssd.duluth.mn.us Exit disclaimer for more information about the campaign. 

Reporting on the Strategy 

The PCB Challenge
Tony Martig, of the USEPA, reminded participants of the Canadian PCB Challenge: to seek a 90% reduction in high-level PCB that were once or are in service, and to accelerate the rate of destruction of stored high level PCBs. He described that an 80% reduction of high-level PCBs and a 25% reduction of low-level PCB waste have been achieved in Canada. Canadian reduction targets are based on a 1994 baseline and currently the workgroup is attempting to revise these targets based on a year 2000 baseline. The workgroup continues to draft PCB reduction letters to many sectors, and to work on a phase-out pilot project with the electric utilities sector. Tony highlighted some of the success stories within industry Sectors. He described DaimlerCrysler of Canada’s removal of all high-level PCBs, Algoma Steel Inc.’s destruction of 13,3000 kilograms of PCBs, and General Electric of Canada’s removal of 5700 tonnes of soil for treatment and disposal. 

Next, Tony described the US PCB reduction efforts. These include PCB reduction commitment letters, PCB Phase-down Program Pilot (electric utilities), and USEPA PBT National Action for PCBs Projects that include the Federal Facility PCB Phase out, and a General PCB outreach and voluntary phase out. He also described working in coordination with Lake Wide Management Plans to promote industrial PCB reduction through increased education and awareness. A PCB Outreach website survey is also being undertaken in collaboration with Environment Canada. It can be found at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/pcb/ . Next, Tony described the outreach and information sharing efforts of the workgroup thought the GLBTS. The web page has been updated and now includes the step reports, case studies, equipment photographs, generic presentations and fact sheets. Tony described that the workgroup is going forward with all of their current projects, and is seeking more projects. 

Next, Ken De, of Environment Canada, briefly elaborated on Canadian PCB reduction progress. He described that the goal of achieving a 90% of the reduction of high level PCB by 2000 had been achieved. He also described that many letter have been mailed out to municipal electrical associations. Finally, Ken encouraged participates to attend the afternoon workgroup meeting for more information. 

Dioxin and Furans Challenge
Nan Gowda, of the USEPA, reviewed the Canadian and US Challenges. Canada was to seek a 90% reduction (of all media within the Great Lakes Basin) by 2000, and the US was to achieve a reduction of 75% (of aggregate air releases nationwide and water releases within Great Lakes Basin) by 2006. Nan reported that Canada has achieved a 79% total reduction, and the US has achieved a 77% reduction (against a 1987 baseline). Nan also explained that the workgroup has assessed burn barrels and residential wood combustion test studies as high priorities. They have assessed as medium priority in US pentachlorophenol treated wood, and in Canada medical waste incineration. Low priority assessments include steel manufacturing, secondary copper smelting, landfill fires, and incinerator ash management. The group requires additional information on low priority items. 

Next, Nan described that the burn barrel and residential wood combustion strategies focus on the encouragement of changes in individual behavior through education, infrastructure, and regulations and enforcement. This project is being undertaken in association with many partners, including LaMPs, Federal governments, Provincial and State governments, First Nations and Tribes, Local Municipalities, local fire departments, and health and environmental groups. Voluntary stack tests continue. Finally, Nan described that the workgroup is concentrating on filling information gaps that have been identified. 

B(a)P/HCB Challenge
Steve Rosenthal, of the USEPA, presented a table of annual HCB emissions. He noted that the US included a volatilization factor for pesticide applications, and that Canada did not. He then showed a map displaying National Air Toxics Assessment Activities and commented that most of the chemical industry in the US has relocated to the south of the country. Steve commented that HCB content is in the ppm range, and it is possible that all of the pesticides are volatilizing. He announced that Catalyst Manufacturing has discontinued their use of HCB, which will represent a reduction in HCB. Emissions are expected to stabilize for the nest few years. 

Next, Steve provided an update on B(a)P. He presented a chart depicting the main sources of B(a)P as petroleum refining (46%), Residential Wood Combustion (29%), Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills (16%) and other sources (9%). He described that the contribution of B(a)P from burn barrels could be significant. Steve reviewed the progress of the Great Wood Stove and Fireplace Change-out Program. He noted that over 1300 stoves or inserts have been replaced, and that a great deal of public education has been undertaken. He described that coke ovens are heavily regulated, including a MACT standard. The workgroup is discussing emissions data with petroleum refineries to ensure that accurate data is collected; and noted that a new MACT standard is anticipated shortly. Finally, Steve described that workgroup will review NPRI reports for data gaps. 

The Mercury Challenge
Bob Krauel, of Environment Canada, reviewed new initiatives being developed in various sectors. A new mercury limiting regulation has been proposed by the State of Wisconsin; enforcement will begin in 2007. The Chlor-Alkali industry has reported a 51% reduction in total use through 2000. The USEPA and American Hospital Association MOU has been signed and expanded, and there are now over 160 health care facilities involved in this program. A new group called Canadian Coalition for Green Health Care was formed. Information about this program can be found on the C2P2 website. Next, Bob reported that Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers signed a Canada Wide Dental Amalgam Standard was signed on  September 23, 2001, and that a City of Toronto by-law requires the installation of an amalgam separator  by January 2002. A Best Management Practices guide sponsored by the Ontario Dental Association has been created for all Great Lakes States. 

Next, Bob described that the Automobile Alliance and the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association have committed to a phase out of mercury switches. He also described that a Canada Wide Standard for lamps is anticipated to achieve a 70% reduction in mercury by 2005, and 80% by 2010. The EcoSuperior Thermostat Company is piloting a mercury reduction program in the north shore of Lake Superior that supports an attempt by Canadian retailers to end sales of mercury thermometers. Bob then reported on mercury education outreach programs. The University of Wisconsin extension project will soon be expanded beyond the Great Lakes, EASE in London has created a successful mercury reduction outreach program for school aged children, and the Minnesota PCA mercury-sniffing dog named Clancy is very popular in schools. In conclusion, Bob described that the US has achieved a 50% reduction in mercury use, and that Canada has achieved a 78% reduction in mercury releases. 

LRT Challenge
Dr. S. Venkatesh, of Environment Canada, and Todd Nettesheim, of the USEPA, provided an update on the LRT Challenge. Venkatesh stated the LRT goal within the GLBTS:

"to assess atmospheric inputs of Strategy substances to the Great Lakes. The aim of this effort is to evaluate and report jointly on the contribution and significance of long-range transport of Strategy of worldwide sources. If ongoing long-range sources are confirmed, work within international frameworks must occur to reduce releases of such substances" 

He described that the first two of the four steps of this undertaking are information gathering and analysis steps. Work has been undertaken on lead (as a surrogate to cadmium) pesticides (HCH) and mercury. He emphasized that global problems need global solutions. Venkatesh described the global modeling of mercury. North America contributes 13% of global elemental atmospheric burden. Europe, China, and Japan are also significant contributors to global mercury deposition. He explained that the amount contributed by each country varies according to the type of mercury. Venkatesh concluded his presentation by commenting that Long Range Transport of emissions from sources outside of North America has a quantifiable influence on the Great Lakes Basin. 

Next, Todd Nettesheim, of the USEPA, provided an update of mercury monitoring and modeling activities. He described that in terms of LRT even a dust event in the Gobi desert can affect North America. Todd described that the USEPA is working with international partners to better share information on monitoring and modeling. He also described that new studies are being undertaken to determine the concentrations of elemental and ionic mercury in the atmosphere. Todd then described that new research is being undertaken on changes in form of mercury, and that there are plans for Ohio monitoring studies. He also described that the USEPA is working with the State of Wisconsin on a mercury-modeling project to provide wet deposition information. Todd concluded his presentation by informing participants that an expert’s workshop will take place in 2002. 

At the conclusion of Venkatesh and Todd’s presentation, Luke Tripp commented that it is important that Environment Canada and the USEPA continue to work together to regulate electric power generation. 

Gary Gulezian and Danny Epstein closed the meeting. The next Stakeholder Forum will take place in May 2002 in Toronto.

List of Attendees

Dan Adsit, Ford
David Ailor, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
Frank Ascombe, USEPA
Thomas Barnett, Ispat Inland
Bob Bailey, GGLI
Douglas Berens, Ford Motor Company
Carol Andrews, Barr Engineering
Douglas Blay, Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Marty Bratzel, International Joint Commission
Tim Brown, The Delta Institute
Andy Buchsbaum, National Wildlife Foundation
Alexis Cain, US EPA
Randy Case, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
John Crovel, HPBA
John Clarke, Environment Canada
Ken De, Environment Canada
John DiMarzio, SIAC
Jim Downes, Solutia Inc.
Dan Hopkins, US EPA
Laurie Draper, Environment Canada
Arthur Dungan, Chlorine Institute
Bob Elvert, ExxonMobil
Danny Epstein, Environment Canada
Doug Fairchild, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District.
John Gilkson, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
Nan Gowda, US EPA
Chuck Grigalauski, Bureau of Land, IL EPA
Gary Gulezian, US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Douglas Green, Piper, Marbury, Ridnick and Wolfe
Cornwell A. Holder, DLA/UNSC
Leah Hagreen, Lourie and Love Inc.
Garth Hawkins, Portland Cement Association
Jon Heinrich, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Darryl Hogg, Environment Canada
Dan Hopkins, USEPA
Joeseph Howver, Harper-Wyman Co.
Bob Huffman, NiSource
Allan Jones, Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee
Robert Jones, DNSC
Lin Kaatz Chary, University of Illinois, School of Public Health
Anthony Kizlauskas, USEPA
Bob Krauel, Environment Canada
George Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Lorinda Lamb, ComEd
Liz LaPlante, USEPA
Cari Lohsee-Hanson, MPCA
Edwina Lopes, Environment Canada
Dennis Lynch, National Defense Stockpile Center
David Marcarus, USEPA
Tracy Mattson, ISRI
Tony Martig, USEPA
Brad May, Environment Canada
John Menkedick, Battelle
George Meyer, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Alison Millerick, Peoples Energy
Michelle Mizell, The Dow Chemical Company
Megan McGarrity, McKenzieParis
James McKenzie, McKenzieParis
Kevin McManamon, Safety-Kleen
Susan Nameth, Environment Canada
Todd Nettesheim, USEPA
Phuong Nguygen, USEPA
Bill Nowak, Great Lakes United
Janet Pellegrini, USEPA
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
E. Marie Phillips, US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Darrell Piekarz, Environment Canada
Lou Pocalujka, Consumers Energy
Paul Rendeau, Gas Technology Institute
Steve Risotto, HSIA
Sue Rodenbeck Brauer, USEPA
Jim Roewer, NRECA
Julie Rosenbah, USEPA
Steve Rosenthal, USEPA
Rita Schoeny, USEPA
Melvin Schwarz, Bureau of Air, IL EPA
Judy Shaw, Syngenta Crop Protection Representing Croplife Canada
Mel Schuchall, Illinois EPA
Bill Simon, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation
Janelle St. Pierre, National Wildlife Federation
Joe Stearns, CCC
Joseph Stepun, Western Lake Superior
Mark Stone, Naval Dental Research Institute
Evelyn Strader, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Edward Swain, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Larry Talbot, Talbot and Associates
Joy Taylor-Morgan, MDEQ
Luke Trip, Environment Canada
Tom Tseng, Environment Canada
Eric Uram, Sierra Club, Midwest Office
Satya Varadhi, Gas Technology Institute
Dr. S. Venkatesh, Environment Canada
John Wachtler, MPCA
Alan Waffle, Environment Canada
Jeri Weiss, USEPA
Dwain Winters, US EPA
Anita Wong, Environment Canada
John Woodyard, Weston
Margaret Wooster, Great Lakes United
Chris Woznic, C2P2
Karen Yang, Environment Canada
Housry Zar, USEPA

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.