Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholders Forum - Chicago, Illinois

November 15, 2001
Integration Group Meeting
 

Welcome  

James McKenzie, the meeting’s facilitator, welcomed all participants to the eleventh Integration Group Meeting. He then called upon Gary Gulezian and Danny Epstein to offer opening remarks. Gary Gulezian, Director of the Great Lakes National Programs Office, thanked all participants for attending this meeting. He described that over the last year, the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) has striven to identify gaps in information and to address where and how they strategy can best assign resources in the future. Danny Epstein, Regional Director of Environment Canada, welcomed all participants. He commented that the Strategy continues to make a difference and that he looks forward to making continued progress during this meeting of the Integration Group. 

Government/Stakeholder Activity Updates 

Andy Buchsbaum, National Wildlife Federation, reported that they released a mercury report in Milwaukee on the same day as mercury hearings were going on. He described that the group had been receiving excellent responses, and that there was a great deal of excellent testimony at the hearings.  

Eric Uram, Sierra Club, announced that “Healthy Harbors and Restored Rivers” has been released. It is available at http://www.sierraclub.org/healthycommunities/rivers/ Exit disclaimer. 

Doug Fairchild, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, announced that the Expanded Regional Burn Barrel Campaign materials are available by contacting him at (212) 722-3336 Ext. 334 or at Douglas.Fairchild@wlssd.duluth.mn.us. 

George Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Industries, thanked all Canadian participants for their support, especially in the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, 2001.  

Marty Bratzel, International Joint Commission, informed participants that the review of the GLBTS is nearing completion. He expects the report to be positive and constructive for the GLBTS. He also announced that there will be a workshops entitled Addressing Atmospheric Mercury: Science and Policy, addressing the atmospheric effects of mercury on December 13,14, 2001 at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  

Report of the Workgroups 

Mercury Workgroup
Edwina Lopes, of Environment Canada, described that a dedicated group of stakeholders met until 6:00pm the previous day. The Workgroup heard from many presenters, and received many updates including updates on methyl mercury, and health related issues. She also described the Workgroup’s continued attempt to increase cooperation between organizations and to focus on international impacts of mercury beyond the scope of Canada and the United States. Finally, Edwina described that the group discussed the removal of anthropogenic mercury from the environment.  

Dioxin/Furan Workgroup
Anita Wong, described that participation was down at their meeting the previous day. The Western Lake Superior Sanitary Group provided an update on the implementation progress of the Expanded Regional Burn Campaign. The Utility Solid Waste Activities Group presented the results of a survey of its membership on the use petachlorophenol treated wood poles post service. They found that 65% of old utility poles are being sold or donated. A waste management guideline for the group’s membership has since been developed. Next, the Workgroup identified gaps in information on Landfill Fires and Incinerator Ash Management, and Canadian First Nation Landfill management practices. Preliminary USEPA data indicates that they may be a possible source of emissions. However, these events are not believed to be frequent. The Workgroup discussed the need to tract the progress of dioxin and furan reduction activities. It was suggested that research on current regulatory schemes and initiatives would be beneficial in order to track on-going mercury reduction programs in the Great Lakes Basin, and on a nation-wide basis. It was also suggested that information be posted on a website. Estimated costs of this undertaking are about $10,000.00 initially and with some financial support for maintenance. Finally, Anita described that the Workgroup’s priority assessment of the residential wood combustion sector had been adjusted. A medium priority has been assigned to the task of information gathering, and a low priority to reduction activity after receiving data from tests done in conjunction with the Hearth Products Association.  

PCB Workgroup
Tony Martig, of the USEPA, described that the Workgroup held a productive meeting which included a presentation by General Motors on PCB removal and information on the decision making process undertaken by GM. Tony reported that the Workgroup would like to focus on small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the future. He also expressed that the Workgroup is interested in making clearer links between the GLBTS efforts as a whole and the individual efforts of the Workgroups, especially concerning sediments.  

B(a)P/HCB Workgroup
Steve Rosenthal, of the USEPA, described that catalytic cracking units contribute about 46% of the total B(a)P to the Great Lakes, and noted that new technology has reduced these emissions. Steve recommended that the inventory be re-assessed. He described that the residential wood combustion sector is the largest source of emissions of B(a)P. He then described that a wood stove change out program had been undertaken to reduce these emissions, that about 1300 stoves were changed, and that another program may be held 2003. David Ailor, of the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, gave a follow-up presentation to the workgroup, which emphasized the poor financial health of the steel and coke oven sector, and that residual risk standards are currently being implemented.  

Next, Steve described that sources of HCB are less obvious. He reported that pesticides appear to be an HCB source category, and described that generally emissions are decreasing. He also noted that pesticide volatilization is being investigated, and suggested that it appears that HCB, when detected, is re-circulating in the atmosphere from times when HCB was used as a registered pesticide. In closing, Steve noted that Bob Bailey’s presentation at the GLBTS Stakeholder Forum showed decreasing levels of HCB.  

There were several questions for the Workgroup Co-leaders. Margaret Wooster, GLU, inquired about the connection between HCB and sediment hotspots. Steve Rosenthal suggested that this is a problem facing the national air assessment’s attempt to model emission levels. Gary Gulezian, USEPA, suggested that the USGS report and the work undertaken in the Lake Erie basin could provide some information on sediments. Danny Epstein, Environment Canada, commented that the GLBTS has a responsibility to report progress on sediments. He described that a process was undertaken in 1995 and 1996 to examine and rank sediment hotspots, then to clean up a certain amount of the area under the Canada – Ontario Agreement. He further described that many areas are historically contaminated and that Environment Canada has been trying to develop partnerships in this area to effect removal. It was suggested that there is an opportunity within the GLBTS to exchange information on sediments and to promote the reporting of progress. Gary further suggested that participants view the sediment reporting contained in the GLBTS 2001 Draft Report (page 45), and, if possible, provide comments on this effort.  

Tim Brown, The Delta Institute, inquired about data available on quantities of sediment to be removed. Gary Gulezian explained that the USEPA is currently working to have states provide better estimates of sediments. He anticipated this effort would take a couple of years. Fred Granek, OCETA, suggested that a lot of information on sediments could be gleaned from the dredging register of the 1970’s and 1980’s. He also suggested that the website www.aboutremediation.com Exit disclaimer administered by OCETA is helpful. 

Eric Uram, Sierra Club, inquired about Tony Martig’s comments on improved sediment coordination. He further commented that his experiences have suggested that the GLBTS should look at Mexico in terms of sources of emissions, specifically calling attention to landfill fires that are emitting dioxins and furans. Eric also suggested that the Integration Group include a presentation on the urban/rural pollution emission discrepancy in a future meeting. Margaret Wooster, GLU, suggested that sediments be included as a future agenda item, adding that many communities are facing sediments as obstacles to waterfront regeneration projects. 

Andy Buchsbaum, NWF, inquired about the disparity between urban and rural HCB emissions. Steve Rosenthal suggested that there are gaps in the inventory and that increased monitoring would be beneficial. Andy then suggested that the GLBTS sponsor a short-term study sponsor a study to monitor of mobile emission sources. Tom Tseng, Environment Canada, commented that research of this nature is currently being undertaken at the University of Toronto on PAH, B(a)P and PCB in urban air, and that elevated levels have been found. Gary Gulezian, USEPA, suggested that a literature search on mobile sources could be undertaken. Anita Wong commented that the National Air Pollutant Surveillance network has been monitoring since 1996 and could be consulted. Dr. Venkatesh, Environment Canada, suggested that a Pacific 2001 study involving EC, universities and EPA NW region on particulate matter characterization of mobile sources could be included as a resource.   

GLBTS 2001 Progress Report and Communication Strategy  

Alan Waffle called attention to the 2001 Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Draft Progress Report (available at the meeting, or online at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/reports/2001Progress/index.html). He explained that he had asked participants for their comments on the style of previous reports in early September, and noted that he received feedback requesting the addition of more charts and graphs. He also noted that a professional writer has been retained to create an executive summary. Alan encouraged participants to provide any further comments or feedback by December 14, 2001. The report will be released in February 2002.  

Dale Phenicie, CGLI, requested that the presentations made at this meeting, at Stakeholder Forum, and at the Workgroup meetings, be included in the progress report. It was agreed that the information in the report should reflect the most up to date information available. George Kuper, CGLI, inquired about the intended audience of the report. Alan explained that the document is meant to demonstrate the accomplishments of the GLBTS to a broad audience interested in the GLBTS, which includes LaMP and IJC constituents.  

Next, Danny Epstein, of Environment Canada, led a discussion of the communication strategy of the GLBTS. He explained that he was challenged at the last meeting to examine both the objectives and financial support mechanisms of the GLBTS communication strategy. He described that Environment Canada and the USEPA are obligated to report the progress of the Strategy to a wide range of audiences. Next, Danny described that the communication budget of Environment Canada is limited. He noted that many of the Integration Group members present at today’s meeting have communication vehicles of their own. Specifically, many organizations such as GLU, CGLI and NWF have newsletters, and noted that it is important not to duplicate efforts. He suggested that a consistent description of the GLBTS and related issues is required and suggested that the group discuss how to best capitalize on the existing mechanisms, expertise, and familiarity with specific audiences that are around the table. Danny suggested that the potentially the Integration Group could approach communications by first agreeing upon a message as a group and then as independently deciding upon the optimal way to communicate the message. He acknowledged that Environment Canada and the US EPA are sensitive to the need for GLBTS participants to promote messages of success.  

Finally, Danny noted that the strategy is approaching its five-year anniversary. He suggested that the Strategy celebrate successes and formally recognize participants. He also suggested that this time could be used to discuss and assess various accomplishments of the work undertaken by the GLBTS and what remains to be accomplished. 

Discussion of the Communication Strategy was opened to all meeting participants. George Kuper, CGLI, thanked Danny for his time and thoughts in addressing communication strategy. George expressed concern that there will not be a central communication plan for the GLBTS. He also observed that the GLBTS strengthens each time they meet and each time communicate the progress of the strategy. Danny emphasized that communication strategy should be comprehensive, and suggested that members of the Integration Group work together on a communication work plan for the next fiscal year.  

Evelyn Strader, CGLI, suggested that the WLSSD Burn Barrel campaign be further examined as an example of a successful communication undertaking, and that the campaign should have a greater link the GLBTS, including an identifying logo. Danny suggested there are opportunities for the GLBTS to be a partner in similar communication efforts. Fred Granek, OCETA, suggested that the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention is also an excellent forum for the communication of success stories.  

Andy Buchsbaum, NWF, commented that the National Wildlife Federation is also currently wrestling with a communication plan. He suggested that in order to entice the public, the GLBTS must emphasize the success of individual projects, provide updates on research and modeling, and also report on the progress made towards goals. Andy described that NWF and other stakeholders receive value from the GLBTS through networking. He also commented that the 5-year point would be an appropriate to discuss the next steps, and to recognize achievements.   

Danny observed that the idea of a 5-year celebration seems to be well received. He observed that while not all achievements are directly attributable to the GLBTS, it has had a significant impact in promoting the reduction of toxic substances. Gary Gulezian, USEPA, commented that in some cases the GLBTS has created an environment that created regulations, and in other cases has influenced enforcement.  He suggested that there many be opportunities, in the future, to work with groups like SOLEC. 

Next, Danny suggested that the communications specialists of GLBTS participant organizations work together on a communication strategy, and that this undertaking guide future decision-making on communication approaches. Joe Stearns, CCC, suggested that the GLBTS has all of the communication experts that it requires via the organizations present around the table, noting the successes of the WLSSD’s Burn Barrel Campaign. Joe further suggested that increased efforts be placed on providing the communications experts with the knowledge of the many scientist involved in the strategy, and that the GLBTS set outreach goals for each year. These goals could include such items as the number of times the strategy will speak with the press, or conduct interviews.   

Tim Brown, The Delta Institute, expressed his optimism about the direction and momentum of the Strategy. He suggested that the Strategy address questions of scale, for example the ramp up of pilot projects.  Margaret Wooster, GLU, suggested that a five-year anniversary would be a good time to re-strategize. She expressed concern that in the past NGOs have not been able to directly participate in the GLBTS Workgroups, as the Strategy has been focused on issues primarily involving industry. Margaret also expressed the concern that NGOs face more local community issues, and suggested that the GLBTS use the next five years to involve NGOs the way industries have been involved in the first five years. Danny Epstein concluded the discussion by thanking all participants for their feedback. 

Linkages between Sustainable Development and Pollution Prevention in the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy 

Ian Orchard, of Environment Canada, and Fred Granek, of the Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement, gave a presentation about the Toronto Region Sustainability Program; a collaborative effort in Pollution Prevention, sustainability and partnership program between Environment Canada, Human Resources and Development Canada, The Ontario Ministry of the Environment, City of Toronto, and various Industry Associations. The aim of the project is to improve the sustainable practices and environmental performance of small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises (SME’s), which have been identified by their risk factors. Extensive marketing of the program was undertaken, including a showcasing of success stories in cooperation with the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention.  

The project addresses the pollution prevention (P2), and eco-efficiency priorities of all three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, at once by conducting a single P2 audit to produce actionable recommendations. OCETA functions as a third-party program manager and delivery agent. A qualified consultant, assigned by OCETA undertakes the on-site audit. Participating firms pay upfront for the cost of the audit, with about 50% of the costs later reimbursed to the participants. The program has three main goals: 

  1. Improve sustainable practices and environmental performance of small and medium sized manufacturing enterprises (SME’s) in the Toronto Region;
  2. Achieve reductions in smog, toxics, hazardous wastes & energy & water consumption through pollution prevention & eco-efficiency.
  3. Develop a transferable program platform for pollution prevention, eco-efficiency & community based sustainability.

The program’s transferable platform design promotes links to and compatibility with other programs (such as NPRI, GLBTS, City of Toronto Sewer Use By-law and Smog and Climate Reduction). Employee training and on-site job placement opportunities are also offered through the sustainability program.  

Fred and Ian concluded their presentation by highlighting some of the many success stories of the program to date. These include the reduction or elimination of toxics from the operations of many small and medium-sized metal-finishing industries. In conclusion Fred and Ian highlighted some of the benefits of the program. The program provides participants with:  

There were several questions and comments for Fred and Ian. George Kuper, CGLI, suggested that the program could benefit from benchmarking progress against the industry-accepted norms and from non-competitive reinforcement between peers. Joe Stearns, CCC, asked if the program offered an environmental shield. Fred explained that administrative problems are addressed in plant and that potential problems are discussed with the consultant, but if no action is taken the consultant must report the problem. If ongoing major problems are discovered, the consultants are directed to leave the site and immediately report the situation. Tim Brown, The Delta Institute, asked about the financial arrangement of the program, and about the reasons companies are motivated to participate. Fred explained that OCETA receives an application from the firm; they assign a consultant to undertake an audit and generate a report. The company pays the consultant.  OCETA sends a letter to ensure that the suggestions are being followed and finally, a reimbursement cheque for about half of the consultant’s fees. Fred also explained that many firms are motivated by stricter regulations and by-laws and others are highly motivated environmental performers who want to improve even more.  Danny Epstein, Environment Canada, inquired about the quantity of reduction of chemicals of concern to the GLBTS. OCETA does not quantify chemical reductions, but Fred suggested that reductions in PAH’s have occurred, and described future plans to expand program scope to include the healthcare sector, which would include mercury.  

Agenda Planning – Integration Group – February 26th Windsor 

Planning of the agenda of the February 26, 2002 Integration Group Meeting in Windsor, Ontario was undertaken. Gary Gulezian suggested that a follow up discussion on the communication strategy be included. He also suggested that a sub-committee be stuck to organize a five-year recognition of the GLBTS.  Interested participants will be asked to participate in teleconference meetings in December 2001, and January, and February of 2002. Contact Alan Waffle at alan.waffle@ec.gc.ca or E. Marie Phillips at Philips.emarie@epamail..epa.gov . 

Next, Margaret Wooster, GLU, requested that a discussion of sediments and the GLBTS be included for several reasons: as an avenue for grassroots involvement; to assist NGO’s in their local work, as a follow up to the alternative technologies workshop; and in order to assist in making a unified case for restoration, and for private and federal investment sediment remediation. Andy Buchsbaum, NWF, suggested that a discussion of the disparities between urban and rural toxic contaminant levels be included, as well as a determination of the research that has been and is currently being undertaken. Tom Tseng, Environment Canada, suggested that the University of Toronto based researcher Dr. Marilyn Diamond be invited to share her research on urban toxics. Gary Gulezian, USEPA, suggested that the sediment question could be approached via a research inventory. George Kuper, CGLI, suggested a half-day workshop be created to bring together various research and monitoring efforts on this topic. Dr. Venkatesh, Environment Canada, suggested that three or four research questions could be developed for the workshop to address. George and Andy agreed to further discuss these questions and they will inform Alan Waffle of their determination.  

Sector Pilot – Informational Presentation on Phase II 

Alan Waffle, of Environment Canada, thanked all those who have participated in the teleconference calls. His presentation summarized the progress of the Sector Subgroup to date. Alan reviewed that Steps 1-3 of the GLBTS have been on a substance-by-substance approach. Alan suggested several reasons for sectorial approach, which include: 

He described that the group will only undertake a sector approach if it deemed to add value to the GLBTS. 

Over the summer the Sector Subgroup d generated a short-list of candidate sectors. The six sectors currently being investigated by the Sector subgroup include: 

During the fall the group began to examine the short-listed sectors in greater detail through a more substantive information gathering process, which was undertaken with assistance of Battelle. This process included the generation of working documents that review several areas of interest.  These include: 

Alan noted that the documents were generated solely for the use of the Sector Subgroup. 

Next, E. Marie Phillips, of the USEPA, summarized the findings of the Sector Subgroup teleconferences undertaken to date. The Auto and Related Manufacturing Sector teleconference focused on auto dismantling, recycling, and the retirement of mercury. It was determined that pilot projects with the either the steel sector or the tire sector would be difficult to identify. The Secondary Copper Smelting teleconference discovered that, as currently defined, this sector no longer exists. The Sector Subgroup will set aside this sector as it continues to investigate this sector and identify data gaps. The Municipal Waste Combustion teleconference discussed recycling, green production policies and mercury retirement. The Sector Subgroup will discuss the remaining sector on upcoming calls. It is anticipated that the group will present their findings at the February Integration Group meeting.  

Following their presentation, there were questions and comments. Andy Buchsbaum, NWF, commented that the draft sector information reports were created for the purpose of gathering information. Tim Brown commented that the Delta Institute is currently looking at pollution prevention opportunities in three sectors, and is also looking into VOC’s in the Chicago area. Tim also suggested that future pilot projects also include Level 2 Substances.  In regard to future undertakings of the Sector Subgroup, it was suggested that the GLBTS should consider the suggestions of the Sector Subgroup and determine if there is a sector that is beneficial to engage. Gary Gulezian described that the emergence single direction from this initiative is not likely; rather he anticipates the emergence of ideas linking this undertaking with other on-going activities.  Dale Phenicie, CGLI, suggested that confidence building is required in order make progress and generate constructive and informative discussion, and that discretion is required while the draft sectors information reports are being discussed.   

Long Range Transport - Update on Monitoring, Trends and Modeling of Strategy Substances 

Todd Nettesheim, of the USEPA, provided an update on modeling trends, specifically focused U.S. data. Several programs currently model the deposition of elemental and ionic mercury in the U.S. and internationally. He discussed chemicals of concern to the strategy and the loading effects of deposition in the Great Lakes. Concentrations of B(a)P, PCB, and HCB in and out of Lakes Superior, Michigan and Erie are close to equilibrium. Lake Erie monitoring stations consistently report higher levels than other stations, though this may to due to variability in the data or sampling. The Chicago monitoring station also consistently reports higher levels of PCB’s. In general B(a)P levels have increased in Lake Ontario. In general, the loading of trace metals, is higher than that of PCB’s and Pesticides. Current DDT levels are suspected to be due to Long Range Transport. HCH concentrations have generally declined.  

Future applications for existing and emerging modeling programs include: 

The Mercury Deposition Network (MDN), in the future, could help researchers identifying sources and understand the environmental impacts of mercury. It is also likely that the new National Dioxin Air Monitoring Network will be able to determine the variability of atmospheric dioxins, furans, and dioxin-like PCB’s.  

There were several questions for Todd. Gary Gulezian, USEPA, asked if the 2000 data from the IADN monitoring network was currently available. Preliminary data is currently available; by January 2002 data will be available for up to the year 1998, and 1999 and 2000 data is expected shortly thereafter. Gary also inquired about the increasing levels of B(a)P graphically depicted in the presentation. Todd commented that he had heard the data reported by Steve Rosenthal of the B (a) P Workgroup earlier and noted that it showed a reduction in the level of B(a)P. Todd suggested that a possible explanation for the difference is either due to the (relatively) short range of B(a)P transport, or that there is a difference in the emission data and the air data, or that the difference could be due to disparities between urban and rural sources, between urban and rural monitoring stations, or more specifically that an urban source of B(a)P is not detected by rural monitors. Todd suggested that the IADN program should consider monitoring additional chemicals to match those currently monitored by the fish program.  

Monitoring, Trends and Modeling of Strategy Substances – An update  

Next, Dr. S. Venkatesh, of the Air Quality Research Branch, Metrological Service of Canada, gave a presentation describing lead deposition, as a surrogate for cadmium, in the Great Lakes, pesticides levels via an urban Toronto air-sampling program, and a global mercury modeling program. He emphasized that global problems require global solutions. 

Lead is used as a surrogate for cadmium, as cadmium is often produced in conjunction with lead and as more data is available on lead. Dr. Venkatesh graphically depicted that most of the emissions on a lake-by-lake basis are being contributed by the USA, with the exception of Lake Ontario where Canada is the main contributor, and on Lakes Superior and Huron both countries contributions are relatively equal. He described high concentrations of alpha-HCH in the Canadian Arctic though there are no known current North American uses. Dr. Venkatesh described a trend of reduced water loading of POP’s in Lake Superior, noting that it appears that the Lake is still acting as a source for air emissions. He also described a downward trend of HCH in Lake Ontario.   

Next, Dr. Venkatesh described a passive air-sampling program in Toronto. The study investigated the vertical profile of POP’s in an urban center, in order to investigate their potential to end up in Lake Ontario. Six monitoring stations were placed vertically up Toronto’s CN Tower beginning at 100ft in 300ft intervals, and were sampled weekly during summer and winter. The study found that PCB concentrations increase in urban areas, whereas alpha-HCH concentrations are consistent between urban and rural levels. He also described that on a global scale, India is the largest used of HCH, and that modeling has tracked the movement pesticide use events in India to the North American Arctic.  

Finally, Dr. Venkatesh explained that the Global and Regional Atmospheric Heavy Metals (GRAHAM) model monitors mercury internationally. Atmospheric concentration of elemental mercury is the highest over the Arctic. Europe and China have been detected as anthropogenic source regions. Various regions contribute to the atmospheric burden of mercury over the Great Lakes; Europe contributes 32%, Japan and China 29%, North America 21% and others sources contribute 18%.  

There were several questions for both presenters. Margaret Wooster, GLU, asked for comments on a Toronto-based newspaper article about the Great Lakes cleansing themselves. Todd suggested the statement was likely based on an IADN press released reporting that the levels of toxics emitted from the lakes were greater that the levels going in. He commented that it appears that PCB is volatilizing from the Lakes. Gary Gulezian, USEPA, suggested that the dynamics of the Lakes are not fully understood, and that seasonal studies, the effects of sediments and many other factors have yet to be fully comprehended. Tim Brown, The Delta Institute, asked if IADN estimates quantities of chemical movement. Todd explained that it does not. Carri Lohse-Hanson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, asked if mercury per capita emission studies had been undertaken. A Norwegian study came close to providing per capita estimates, with contributions by country. Andy Buchsbaum, NWF, asked if the models currently take into account the background levels from anthropogenic sources. Models do not currently take re-emissions into account, but scientists are considering sediments releases. Dr. Venkatesh informed the group of the upcoming National Monitoring Conference from May 21-23, 2002 at the Monona Terrace Convention Center in Madison, WI. More information is available at http://acwi.gov/monitoring/ Exit disclaimer.  

Gary Gulezian and Danny Epstein closed the meeting. The next Integration Group meeting will be held on February 26, 2001 in Windsor, ON.

List of Attendees

Marty Bratzel, International Joint Commission
Sue Brauer, US EPA Region 5
Timothy Brown, Delta Institute
Andy Buchsbaum, National Wildlife Federation
Alexis Cain, USEPA
Lin Kaatz Chary, University of Illinois at Chicago
Brad Cumming, Environment Canada
Ken De, Environment Canada
Tania Del Matto, C2P2
John DiMarzio, SIAC
Jim Downes, Environment Canada
Danny Epstein, Environment Canada
Doug Fairchild, WLSSD
Nan Gowda, US EPA, Region 5
Derek Grasso, American Ref-Fuel Company
Fred Granek, Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement
Gary Gulezian, US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Leah Hagreen, Lourie and Love Inc.
Jon Heinrich, Resources
Darryl Hogg, Environment Canada
Dan Hopkins, US EPA
Alan Jones, Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee
Anthony Kizlauskas, US EPA – Great Lakes National Program Office
Bob Krauel, Environment Canada
George Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Edwina Lopes, Environment Canada
David Marcarus, US EPA, Region 5
Tony Martig, US EPA
Brad May, Environment Canada
James McKenzie, McKenzieParis
John Menkedick, Battelle
Megan McGarrity, McKenzieParis
Susan Nameth, Environment Canada
Todd Nettesheim, US EPA – Great Lakes National Program Office
Phuong Nguyen, US EPA, Region 5 
Ian Orchard, Environment Canada
Janet Pellegrini, US EPA, Region 5
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
E. Marie Phillips, US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Darryl Piekarz, Environment Canada
Lou Pocalujka, Consumers Energy
Julie Rosenbach, USEPA
Steve Rosenthal, US EPA Region 5
Joe Stearns, CCC
Joe Stepun, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Evelyn Strader, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Mark Stone, Navel Dental Research Institute
Vicki Thomas, US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Tom Tsang, Environment Canada
Eric Uram, Sierra Club, Midwest Office
Satya Varadhi, Gas Technology Institute.
Dr. S. Venkatesh, Meteorological Service of Canada
Jennifer Vincent, Environment Canada
Alan Waffle, Environment Canada
Anita Wong, Environment Canada
Margaret Wooster, Great Lakes United
Karen Yang, Environment Canada

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.