Jump to main content.

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholder Forum

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Integration Workgroup Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
December 6, 2006 

Meeting Summary

Welcome, Introductions

Gary Gulezian, Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), and Danny Epstein, Regional Director of Environmental Operations, Environment Canada (EC), welcomed all participants to the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) Stakeholder Forum.  Gary noted that new actions within the GLBTS indicate that it remains a vital endeavor with new opportunities for reductions. Gary also announced that a draft 2006 GLBTS Progress Report was available at the back of the room; comments on the draft report are due by January 16, 2007.  Danny commented that it is an interesting time for the GLBTS with the completion of the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), review of the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA), and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) review.  Danny noted that the GLBTS remains focused on the original goals related to the Level 1 and Level 2 substances.  Danny requested that the substance-specific workgroups, in their break-out sessions today, review the outcomes and recommendations of the management assessment reports which began to be prepared in 2004.  He asked that the workgroups provide feedback at the next Integration Workgroup meeting in February 2007, as a lead-in to the GLBTS 10th anniversary meetings in May 2007.

Keynote Address – New Industrial Ecology, Pollution Prevention, and the New York/New Jersey Harbor Project

James McKenzie, facilitator for the meeting, introduced the keynote speaker, Dr. Marta Panero, Project Director for the Industrial Ecology, Pollution Prevention, and the New York/New Jersey Harbor (Harbor Project) of the New York Academy of Sciences. Dr. Panero has been involved in the Harbor Project since 1999. 

Dr. Panero described the New York/New Jersey Harbor, an important part of the northeast which affects 17 million people. The goals of the Harbor Project, established in 2002, were to understand the causes of harbor pollution, estimate contaminant fluxes to the harbor, recommend mitigation and pollution prevention actions, and work with stakeholders to encourage implementation of the recommended actions. 

The approach to developing strategies for the project included research, mass balance analyses, and a collaborative key stakeholder consortium. Dr. Panero emphasized the importance of the stakeholder consortium, and noted that stakeholders collaboratively decide which contaminants are important to the harbor.  A wide diversity of participants comprises the consortium, which provides an opportunity for mutual cooperation and collaboration. 

In addition to emphasizing outreach and communication to arrive at solutions, the project uses the methodology of industrial ecology to achieve the project’s overall purpose of developing pollution prevention strategies for selected contaminants in the harbor. 

Dr. Panero described case studies of strategies employed to reduce mercury, cadmium, PCBs, dioxin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The project has produced action plans which include recommended actions for each substance or group of substances. These recommendations may be voluntary or regulatory actions. 

Next steps for the project include a Synthesis Report, which is expected to be completed in Spring 2007.  More information about the Harbor Project, including project reports, is available at www.nyas.org/programs/harbor.asp Exit disclaimer.  

Questions 

Following Dr. Panero’s presentation, several questions were posed by members of the audience.  In response to a question about the impact of the project on companies becoming ISO 14000 certified, Dr. Panero affirmed that the project has had an impact on the number of companies that are ISO-certified. 

Tom Tseng inquired about members of the key stakeholder consortium. Dr. Panero identified consortium members as representatives from academia, research institutions, industry, labor advocacy groups, regional agencies, not-for-profit organizations, and small business associations.  Consortium members are listed in project reports, which are posted on the project’s website.  Tom also inquired whether companies agree to implement recommended actions and whether this approach has been successful.  Dr. Panero replied that the project has had some successes in persuading firms to implement recommendations.  She also noted that advocacy groups use the project’s reports to approach companies. 

Craig Wardlaw observed that the primary driver for the Harbor Project was contaminated sediment in the harbor, and he asked if actions have been taken to address this contamination. Dr. Panero responded that the project seeks to reduce new inputs to the harbor, and dredging and testing have been conducted; the sediment must be treated or sent for upland disposal.  Modeling of sediment movement is expected to provide more information about contamination in the harbor, and the project’s Synthesis Report will include additional measures that can be taken to prevent new inputs to the harbor.

Reporting on the Strategy

PCB Challenge
Tony Martig of US EPA reminded the audience of the GLBTS challenge goals for PCBs and reported on US and Canadian progress toward those goals. As of April 2005, 89 percent of high-level PCBs in storage in Ontario had been destroyed (since 1993), and Canada will likely achieve 90 percent reduction by 2006. Approximately 68 percent of high-level PCBs in service (about 2,800 net tons remaining) have been reduced. For PCBs that are still in service, it is unlikely that the 90 percent reduction target will be met.  Less than 400 PCB sites remain in Ontario (both federal and non-federal), down from 1,529 in 1993.

Canada has a reporting requirement for PCB-containing equipment which helps EC assess progress toward the challenge goal. The government recently received updated PCB inventory data and is entering the data into the National Inventory Database. The US also has a reporting requirement for PCB transformers, established in 2000, and information is entered into a PCB Transformer Registration Database (updated in August 2006).  However, to determine progress, the US has more data to compile. According to the PCB Transformer Registration Database, approximately 14,700 PCB transformers were registered with US EPA. Using annual disposal data, an estimated 113,000 PCB transformers and 1,330,000 large PCB capacitors remained in use in the US at the end of 2003.  The US is lacking sufficient data to determine with accuracy the status of progress toward the PCB challenge goal of a 90 percent reduction of high-level PCBs.  US EPA is compiling 2004/2005 PCB disposal information and, based on the updated PCB transformer registrations, will re-evaluate data gaps in the inventory.  US EPA will also take a closer look at the US GLBTS challenge goal for PCBs, considering the updated PCB Transformer Registration Database and the compilation of 2004/2005 PCB disposal information.

Tony presented examples of Canadian accomplishments related to the PCB challenge goal.  New Canadian PCB regulations were published in the Canada Gazette I on November 4, 2006, with 60 days for comment.  The regulation is expected to be finalized in 2007.  The regulations will require:

EC’s PCB Recognition and Award Program for achieving 90 percent or better elimination of high-level PCBs has had eight award recipients to date, and four additional Ontario companies have shown interest.  In response to over 1,000 requests for inventory updates which were mailed to PCB owners (in priority industry sectors) in 2005, EC has received over 400 PCB inventory updates to date.  In addition, EC met with two major steel producers in Ontario regarding phasing out their PCB transformers and capacitors.

Tony also presented examples of PCB Workgroup accomplishments on the US side:

HCB/B(a)P Challenge
Steve Rosenthal of US EPA presented the status of progress toward US and Canadian GLBTS challenge goals for HCB and B(a)P. Both Canada and the US have achieved reductions. The US has met the challenge goals, reducing B(a)P emissions in the Great Lakes states by 77 percent from 1996 to 2001, and also reducing HCB emissions. The exact reduction in HCB emissions from 1990 to 1999 is uncertain due to differences in inventory estimation methods over the time period. HCB emissions in the US declined 28 percent from 1999 to 2002 using comparable National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data.  Canada continues to pursue its goal of a 90 percent reduction in HCB and B(a)P. Relative to a 1988 baseline, Canada has reduced B(a)P emissions by 52 percent and HCB emissions by 73 percent.

Steve described recent activities to reduce B(a)P in the US.  Residential wood combustion is the largest source of B(a)P. Wood stove changeout programs to remove pre-1990, highly polluting wood stoves are the most effective way to reduce emissions from this source.  A wood stove changeout program was held in Dayton, Ohio, in August 2006.  Burn It Smart! workshops were also held in the basin in 2006.  To address scrap tires, a source of B(a)P emissions when scrap tire piles catch on fire, several actions were recently undertaken, including GIS mapping and inventorying of scrap tire piles in Great Lakes states, completion of a Scrap Tire Cleanup Guidebook and on-line training, and best practices training.  Scrap tire forums to discuss scrap tire cleanups and case studies of scrap tire fires were held in Chicago and in Lansing, Michigan.  US EPA regulations control emissions from coke ovens, and a binational emissions reduction and monitoring program has been initiated at Algoma Steel in Ontario.  The Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative is a US EPA Region 5 program aimed at reducing emissions from diesel engines. 

To reduce HCB, recent activities in the US include the GLBTS Burn Barrel Subgroup’s ongoing work, HCB Workgroup efforts to confirm lower levels of HCB in pesticide products, and substantial emission reductions from several major chemical companies.  Also, phase one of an HCB inventory for the US has been completed.

The outlook for the US in terms of continuing to reduce B(a)P and HCB releases includes the following planned activities:

In Canada, recent activities related to B(a)P emissions from residential wood combustion include testing of conventional wood stoves, development of a brochure for First Nations, a preliminary survey investigating outdoor wood boiler use, and Burn It Smart! shows and workshop accreditation.

EC is also undertaking an HCB Modeling Project to investigate the impact of long-range transport on the Great Lakes.

HCB releases in Ontario are very low (~13.5 kg (30 lbs)).  Further reductions are being sought from the top three source categories:  pesticides, burn barrels, and ferric/ferrous chloride use.

It is not likely that Canada will meet its challenge goal for B(a)P by 2007.  In addition to source receptor modeling, actions are being taken to address emissions from the top source categories: the iron and steel sector, in-service creosote-treated railway ties, and wood stoves.

Mercury Challenge
Edwina Lopes of EC reported US and Canadian progress on the GLBTS mercury challenge goals.  Compared to a goal of a 90 percent reduction, Canada has achieved an approximate 85 percent reduction in mercury releases in Ontario (from a 1988 baseline). The US challenge goals under the GLBTS are 50 percent reductions in the use and release of mercury. The US has achieved greater than 50 percent reductions in both the use and release of mercury, thereby meeting the GLBTS goals.

Edwina provided updates on activities to reduce mercury, including mercury collection programs and a US National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program.  The Chlorine Institute’s Ninth Annual Report, which was released in 2006, indicated a 91 percent reduction in mercury use per ton of production capacity in that sector (beyond reductions from closing facilities).  In addition, a US Phase-down Strategy for Mercury in Products is being developed by a state/tribal group, with a draft expected in 2007.

Edwina presented charts illustrating reductions in mercury emissions in the US and Ontario and in mercury use in the US, by source category.  The Mercury Workgroup will continue to track progress toward the challenge goals.  The Mercury Workgroup also plans to:

  1. Continue workgroup meetings.
  2. Increase attention to global mercury releases, by supporting United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) efforts and encouraging global action by industry based in North America.
  3. Increase its focus on tracking environmental changes.
  4. Consider the possibility of new challenge goals.

Dioxin/Furan Challenge
Erin Newman of US EPA reported on progress toward the US and Canadian GLBTS dioxin/furan challenge goals. Canada has achieved an 89 percent reduction in total releases within the Great Lakes Basin (baseline 1988), compared to a 90 percent reduction goal.  The US has met its goal of a 75 percent reduction in air releases nationwide.  US EPA’s 2000 Dioxin Inventory, which was finalized on December 1, 2006, indicates that emissions in 2000 were 1,422 grams, representing an 89 percent reduction from the 1987 baseline. 

The top dioxin/furan sources in Ontario (2005 estimates) are backyard burning (28 percent), non-ferrous smelters (13 percent), federal waste incineration (10 percent), sewage sludge land application (9 percent), iron and steel (9 percent), on-road diesel vehicles (7 percent), power generation (6 percent), and other sources (18 percent).  The top dioxin/furan sources in the US (2000 estimates) are backyard burning (35 percent), medical waste incineration (27 percent), diesel (on and off road) (7 percent), municipal solid waste combustion (6 percent), municipal wastewater treatment sludge (6 percent), coal-fired utility boilers (5 percent), industrial wood combustion (3 percent), and other sources (11 percent).

Reduction activities in Ontario include ongoing outreach activities through the Burn Barrel Subgroup; fuel and vehicle emission regulations, as well as in-use diesel retrofit programs; phase-out of coal-fired power plants; Canada-Wide Standards for the iron and steel sector; and a potential new rule that would address waste incinerator emissions.

Reduction activities in the US include Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators, and cement kilns; Burn Barrel Subgroup efforts and a new backyard burning workgroup formed under the US EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS); new standards for diesel fuel and engines, as well as voluntary programs to accelerate diesel retrofits and replacements; and controls for coal-fired utility boilers.  No action is being taken on sewage sludge application in either country due to a low risk determination, as concluded by data indicating low concentrations of dioxins/furans in sewage sludge.

Other issues that the Dioxin Workgroup has addressed include agricultural burning, pathway intervention, and ambient air monitoring. 

The Burn Barrel Subgroup has continued its efforts to reduce household garbage burning, including development of a Learn Not to Burn toolkit.  The toolkit will be used to conduct outreach to local officials.  US EPA has also formed a new national workgroup focusing on household garbage burning.  EC has established an Adopt a Watershed Pilot Project with conservation authorities to promote community working group activities to reduce open burning in rural areas of Ontario.

Future actions for the Dioxin Workgroup will include:

Questions

Following the presentations by the workgroup leaders, several questions were raised by Integration Workgroup members.  Carri Lohse-Hanson asked whether the source of HCB from pesticides included currently used pesticides.  Steve Rosenthal replied that approximately six pesticides that are currently used contain unintentional residual HCB. The HCB/B(a)P Workgroup has been working to confirm the levels of HCB in these pesticides.

Marta Panero inquired about the criteria for choosing HCB and B(a)P over other PAHs.  Steve Rosenthal explained that he was not involved in the selection of these substances in 1997, but he speculated that they were chosen for being more toxic than other compounds and representative of a larger category of PAHs.  Gary Gulezian added that the selection of substances for the GLBTS considered chemicals on Great Lakes lists and an impact assessment.

Dave Michaud of WE Energies commented on US EPA’s clean diesel initiative and inquired whether US EPA had established emission factors for clean diesel and other diesel engines.  Steve Rosenthal responded that some particulate matter testing has been done, but he was not aware of any emission factors for B(a)P.  However, a draft modeling study conducted by Battelle has shown diesel emissions to be a major source of B(a)P. Marta Panero commented that there are some unofficial values for emissions from diesel engines. Dave inquired whether US EPA’s AP-42 emission factors were used to estimate dioxin emissions in the chart that Erin presented. Erin explained that US EPA prepared the dioxin inventory using Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data and other sources.

Plenary Closing

Gary Gulezian concluded the morning plenary session and invited participants to the Integration Workgroup on the following day. The plenary session was followed by workgroup break‑out sessions for mercury, PCBs, dioxins/furans, and HCB/B(a)P.

Next Meeting

The next GLBTS Stakeholder Forum is scheduled for May 23, 2007, in Chicago.  


December 6, 2006, Stakeholder Forum Attendees

Todd Abel Chlorine Chemistry Council
David Ailor National Oilseed Producers Association
Holly Arrigoni US EPA Region 5
Milena Avramovic Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Bob Bailey Bailey Associates
Mike Berndt Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Sue Brauer US EPA Region 5
Alexis Cain US EPA Region 5
Ken De Environment Canada
Jon Dettling Great Lakes Commission
Chris Dindagy SLVS
David Dunlap Chlorine Institute
Jack Dutra Mid America CropLife Association
Curtis Englot Environment Canada
Danny Epstein Environment Canada
P.L. Fan American Dental Association
John Gilkeson Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Bruce Gillies Environment Canada
Doug Green DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP
Gary Gulezian US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Rachel Heckl Great Lakes United
Stephen Hoffman US EPA
Melissa Hulting US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
John Jackson Great Lakes United
Deb Jacobson IL Waste Management & Research Center/IL Department of Natural Resources
Dawn Jensen ERCO Worldwide
Allan Jones Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council
Lin Kaatz Chary Northwest Indiana Toxics Action Project/Great Lakes United
George H. Kuper Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI)
Marie-Helene Lacasse Environment Canada
Dennis Leonard Detroit Edison
Victor Li Environment Canada
Carri Lohse-Hanson Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Edwina Lopes Environment Canada
Jianmin Ma Environment Canada
David Macarus US EPA Region 5
Tony Martig US EPA Region 5
John Mayes Ontario Ministry of the Environment
John McDonald International Joint Commission
James McKenzie McKenzieParis Inc.
Shawn Michajluk Environment Canada
Dave Michaud WE Energies
Tricia Mitchell Environment Canada
Elizabeth Murphy US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Todd Nettesheim US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Erin Newman US EPA
Tracey Norberg Rubber Manufacturers Association
Tom Nowicki Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Ian Orchard Environment Canada
Marta Panero New York Academy of Sciences
Dale Phenicie Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI)
Kevin Pylka U.S. Steel Keewatin Taconite
Steve Risotto Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA)
Jim Roewer USWAG
Steve Rosenthal US EPA Region 5
Julie Schroeder Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Lorraine Seed Health Canada
Kristi Skebo National Wildlife Federation
Ted Smith US EPA Region 5
Evelyn Strader Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI)
Cara Sweeney Clean Air Foundation
Kate Taillon Environment Canada
Sharon Thieszen Northshore Sanitary District
Amy Thomas Battelle
Tom Tseng Environment Canada
Eric Uram Headwater Consulting
Raymond Vaughan New York State Attorney General’s Office
Alan Waffle Environment Canada
Craig Wardlaw Headwater Environmental Services
E. Marie Wines US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Jessica Winter US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Anita Wong Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Joan Woodyard Weston
Cindy Yang Environment Canada

 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.