Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholders Forum, Windsor, Ontario

September 11, 2003
Hyatt Regency Chicago
Minutes

Welcome and Introductory Remarks

Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, USEPA, welcomed participants to the Integration Workgroup meeting. He observed that attendance was slightly less than previous meetings, likely attributable to the date of the meeting, September 11th, and then confirmed that key constituencies were participating. A moment of silence was observed. 

Danny Epstein, Regional Director, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada, also welcomed participants to the meeting. He confirmed Gary’s remarks about the ongoing impact of the events of September 11th and the importance of paying tribute. Turning then to the agenda, Danny highlighted the PCB Reduction Awards that were to be distributed in the latter part of the day, and reflected on the anticipated discussion on the Level I Substance Reassessment Process. 

Stakeholder Updates

Alan Waffle provided a brief synopsis of the Tall Ships Festival held in Chicago at Navy Pier, July 30 – August 4 2003, at which over 2 million people attended. He reported that Environment Canada and the USEPA were given the opportunity to exhibit and promote the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. Those visiting the exhibit supported and encouraged the initiative. 

Reporting on Achievements and Challenges

Mercury Workgroup
Bob Krauel, Environment Canada

Bob Krauel discussed recent activities in the dental sector. A draft option report on dental amalgam management, prepared by the USEPA, is currently under review. This report is a synopsis of a Dental Amalgam Symposium held in Chicago, on December 2 2002, as part of the semi-annual GLBTS Mercury Workgroup meeting. 

A dental workgroup has been established in Ontario to promote proper dental amalgam practices and provide resources to dental communities. Participants include the Ontario Dental Association, the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario, the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, the Durham College Dental Hygienist Program, the Ontario Dental Hygienist Association, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the Ontario Dental Nurses and Assistants Association, the George Brown College Faculty of Community Services and Health Sciences, the University of Toronto Faculty of Dentistry, and the University of Western Ontario School of Dentistry. Quick reference flowcharts on best management practices are being distributed to all dental offices in Ontario. A more detailed best management practices document for the use, management, and disposal of dental amalgam wastes and other dental wastes is being prepared, and it is anticipated that this will become a part of the curriculum in colleges and universities teaching dentistry in Ontario. 

Finally, Ontario Regulation (196/03) came into effect November 15, 2003. This regulation requires all dental offices in which dental amalgam is placed, repaired, or removed to have a properly installed dental amalgam separator. The Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario is responsible for administering the regulation. 

A partnership between the Mercury Workgroup and the Council of the Great Lakes Industries (CGLI) has been formed to produce a guide to assist with identifying industrial mercury containing devices and equipment.

The auto switch and thermometer programs remain ongoing. 

Questions and Comments

A participant commented that dental amalgam in waste-water was subject to a City of Toronto sewer by-law, and asked about the by-law’s effect with respect to achieved reductions. Bob responded that the regulation has been in effect for approximately 18 months and that the City of Toronto has experienced a 40% to 70% reduction, noting that different sewage treatment plants are achieving different rates of reduction.

A participant noted that Pollution Probe has produced a mercury primer that provides an overview of mercury and mercury-related issues. It is available through Probe’s web site at <www.pollutionprobe.org>Exit disclaimer.

Dioxins and Furans Workgroup
Anita Wong, Environment Canada

Anita Wong reported that the Workgroup has been working on residential wood burning, and monitoring a number of sectors, including waste incinerators and steel producers. The Workgroup has concluded that recent efforts have been producing diminishing returns and the time is appropriate to address new issues. Erin Newman, US Co-lead, has drafted a work plan for the next two years that is aimed at identifying additional sources of releases in the Basin. To that end, the Workgroup has identified the following sectors that it believes warrant focus:

Other Workgroup plans include: identifying joint priorities with other Substance-specific Workgroups, continuing burn barrels outreach, and exploring links to the public health sector. The Workgroup is also updating its inventory using data collected in 2001. (The last Dioxins inventory for Canada was updated in 1999.)

Finally, a Phase One North American Regional Action Plan on Dioxins/Furans and Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) was released on July 18, 2003. It has been posted on the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) web site at <www.cec.org>Exit disclaimer.

Question and Comments

A participant asked if Anita had attended the International Dioxin meeting in Boston and, if so, what her thoughts were on the subject matter. Anita responded that she did attend and found the meeting to be more science oriented and less policy based.

Benzo(a)Pyrene / Hexachlorobenzene (B(a)P/HCB) Workgroup
Tom Tseng, Environment Canada

Tom Tseng provided an update regarding three major sectors: pesticides, wood stoves, and vehicle emissions. Pesticides remain a major source of HCB releases, and though preliminary release estimates appeared satisfactory, documentation has not been sufficient to fully characterize release volumes.

The Workgroup has new staff dedicated solely to wood stove issues. It continues to work closely with Natural Resources Canada to improve educational programs and emission testing of wood stoves. Last year alone the Workgroup convened 60 workshops to educate the public on appropriate practices.

With respect to vehicle emissions, the Workgroup is aiming to undertake testing on B(a)P/HCB emissions, hopefully in the Spring 2004, provided that sufficient resources and funds are available. Tom reaffirmed the Workgroup’s commitment to supplementing the emissions inventory.

In closing, Tom advised that the Workgroup intends to invite sector representatives to its December 2003 meeting to provide an update on pesticides.

Question and Comments

Judy Shaw followed up on pesticides by advising participants that, as of 2000, pesticide use in Ontario has been reduced 60%.

Polychorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Workgroup
Ken De, Environment Canada

Notwithstanding the substantial progress that has been achieved in meeting PCB reduction goals, Ken De reported that large amounts of PCBs continue to be maintained in transformers and capacitors now in use. He also noted that:

Ken reported that the Workgroup will continue its outreach work, including the distribution of brochures, newsletters, and commitment letters to major industry sectors currently using or storing PCBs. It will also give consideration several other initiatives (i.e., SME PCB Audits, Financial Incentives, and ISO 14000 initiatives) to stimulate decommissioning and/or destruction. Finally, the Workgroup will continue its recognition program.

Questions and Comments

A participant inquired about the difference between Canadian and US achievements with respect to reduction targets. Ken replied that the US maintains larger quantities of PCBs than does Canada, and therefore would require a longer period to achieve comparable reductions. He also advised that Canada has recently implemented an improved inventory system to track PCB use and storage.

Communication Strategy: Crosswalk with LaMP Activities
E. Marie Phillips, USEPA

E. Marie Phillips reported that draft charts of the revised version of the Crosswalk were circulated to LaMP (Superior, Michigan, Ontario, and Erie) members following the most resent Integration Workgroup meeting. Efforts to identify opportunities for collaboration between LaMP groups and GLBTS participants continue.

Elements of New GLBTS Level 1 Substance Reassessment Process
Ted Smith, USEPA

Ted Smith reported that the Level I Substance Reassessment Process evolved from the GLBTS Substance Consideration Process introduced at the Integration Workgroup meeting in May 2003. In re-examining the draft, it was determined that attention should be focused only on Level I substances. Ted emphasized that Level II substances are not being ignored, but rather that the Level I substances remain the first priority at this time. He reported that there is an ongoing subgroup, with representation from key participants, providing input into this process.

The objective of the Substance Reassessment Process (SRP) is to re-evaluate Level I substances to ascertain changes in status, including, among other things, offering recommendations on de-listing, identifying the need to refer a substance to a LaMP or other program, and offering recommendations on establishing new challenge goals. Each substance will be subjected to such an analysis. Ted then proceeded to describe the steps and operation of the SRP decision tree. 

Question and Comment

In response to the first question on data availability, a participant suggested that consideration also be given to the value and quality of the data, if available. Ted concurred with the suggestion, noting that it is something the Integration Workgroup will explore.

A participant suggested that the decision tree components better reflect the importance of data and monitoring.

A participant commented that it would be useful to include discharge data. Moreover, the participant recommended that the process should emphasise pollution prevention, and encouraged the inclusion of a step in the decision tree to ensure as much. The participant also suggested that criteria should be seen as an interim measure and that precaution is pertinent. Ted responded that the interim challenge goal question is a high bar and that the Workgroups are working mainly on pollution prevention projects. In so doing, they are guided by the principle of pollution prevention.

A participant suggested that periodic reassessment might pose a problem and that the language used in the draft decision tree is challengeable.

Danny Epstein noted that, in looking at the objectives, care must be exercised in using terms like “de-listing.” He advised that the intent is not to outright de-list substances as they are problematic and will likely remain so. Danny advised that the aim of the tool is to provide a means by which to determine the point where it can be reasonably stated that everything has been done to virtually eliminate a substance.

At this point, John Menkedick undertook a test application of the decision tree, focusing on three substances on the Level I List. John advised participants that the decision tree could be viewed as a problem-solving matrix.

Alkyl-Lead

Have challenge goals been met? Yes. John reported that it is believed that Alkyl-Lead challenge goals have been met and so it was open for all evaluations possible.

Is sufficient monitoring data available? It depends. As Alkyl-Lead degrades so rapidly in the environment, it is best to employ as a surrogate data on its uses. By doing so, a metric for monitoring data can be established. 

Have criteria been established? No. Criteria for Alkyl-Lead are not particularly useful as it degrades so rapidly in the environment. 

Is the trend decreasing? Yes. There has been evidence that decreases in use have occurred.

Has virtual elimination been achieved? No. Alkyl-Lead is still being used in aviation fuel.

Ability for the GLBTS to effect improvements in the Basin? No. Both the aviation and automobile racing sectors would more effectively be addressed at the national level. There is little else that the GLBTS can do.

Upon completion of this trial run, John concluded that the appropriate action would be a deferral of Alkyl-Lead to a national program, for example the USEPA’s PBT Program.

Questions and Comments

A participant commented that limiting answers to a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response raises other questions that the draft decision tree does not address.

A participant suggested that instead of referring a substance to another program, the GLBTS should seek input from other regulatory bodies.

Mercury 

Have challenge goals been met? No. As such, Mercury would fall under no change in Level I status/periodic reassessment by the GLBTS. A new challenge goal for Mercury could be set and thus the following questions could be answered.

Is sufficient monitoring data available? Yes. There is sufficient data on environmental levels and use. 

Have criteria been established? Yes. Criteria have been established. For example, the USEPA has established a Reference Dose (RfD) for methylmercury of 0.1ug/kg/day which is approximately equal to a concentration of 5.8 ppb mercury in blood. 

Do levels in biota, air and water, etc. exceed criteria? Yes. There is sufficient data to prove that there is no safe level of Methylmercury in blood.

Ability of the GLBTS to effect improvements in the Basin? Yes. The Mercury Workgroup continues to reduce Mercury use and release in the Great Lakes Basin.

Principally Lake Specific? No. Mercury use and its impacts are not confined to any one Great Lake.

Can New Challenge goals be established? Yes, but not independent of other Mercury challenge goals.

Upon completion of this trial run, John suggested that Mercury maintain its Level I status by being placed in the ‘No change/Periodic reassessment by GLBTS’ box of the decision tree.

Questions and Comments

A participant asked why it would make sense to proceed through the application of the decision tree if no challenge goal has been met. The decision was made so as to provide an assessment of the draft process under different circumstances.

Octochlorostyrene (OCS) 

Have challenge goals been met? Yes. John reported that the US and Canadian goals for OCS have been met according to the GLBTS Step 3 Report.

Is sufficient monitoring data available? No. Monitoring data on OCS is scarce. 

High Priority for Monitoring. John believes that there is a high priority for monitoring due to the lack of monitoring data.

Upon the completion of this brief trial run, John concluded that OCS maintain its Level I status by being placed in the ‘No change/Periodic reassessment by GLBTS’ box of the decision tree.

Question and Comments

Danny Epstein commented that next steps will include developing a proposal for how the actual process will be carried out. A re-draft the current decision tree and a paper on how the evaluation process will proceed will be provided at the next Integration Workgroup meeting in December 2003.

A participant commented that the proposed decision tree and process is premature, and that there are too many uncertainties that need to be identified and addressed. Gary responded by noting that action is required in order to discover what does and does not work.

Presentation of Awards for PCB Reductions
Ken De, Environment Canada 

In welcoming the award recipients, Danny Epstein affirmed that meeting the reduction goals set by the GLBTS is dependent on the joint efforts of governments, companies, and the public. He congratulated the award recipients on behalf of Environment Canada and encouraged others to follow their lead and leadership. He also lauded the work of the PCB Workgroup for developing a means by which to recognize companies that have voluntarily reduced PCBs.

Gary Gulezian also congratulated the award recipients on behalf of the USEPA, and affirmed that those who live and work in the Basin appreciated their commitment and work.

Ken De then presented awards to the following company executives:

Canada’s New Agricultural Policy Framework: The Environment Chapter
Mike Hicknell, Senior International Trade Advisor
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

Mike Hicknell began his remarks noting that the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF) is a five-year program designed to address: food safety and food quality; the environment; science and innovation; renewal; and business risk management. The last component, business risk management, is considered to be the largest component of the APF encompassing two smaller components that receive funding. These are crop insurance and a renewed/revised net income stabilization program.

Mike then reported on the three principles central to the Framework:

Upon completion of the five year term, it is expected that the APF Environment Chapter will have a comprehensives national program, national standards, new tools for producers to support environmentally sound food production, environmental farm planning as part of normal farm planning operations, market place recognition for environmentally sound food production, and consumer access to quality food.

The APF program is divided into three main areas:

All provinces have signed on to the Framework and, to date, four out of 10 provinces and one territory have signed the implementation agreement. Negotiations on programming and implementation details between national and provincial levels remain ongoing. Ontario and Canada have also concluded negotiations on programming; however, the Canada-Ontario APF Agreement remains to be signed.

Mike also reviewed EFP participation rates in terms of municipal counties across the province of Ontario. It was shown that roughly half of the land base was covered by the program, and that as of July 31 2003, 24,800 workbooks had been distributed, 26,000 people had participated in workshops, and 16,200 EFP Action Plans had been peer reviewed.

Question and Comments

A participant inquired about environmental scans, wondering what constituted high or higher risk areas. Mike advised that, with regard to criteria, that has not been fully identified and that more is required in terms of elaborating APF goals. Mike also noted that the targets identified nationally are based on a model on air, water, soil and biodiversity used in countries around the world.

A participant asked if the effects of toxins in food would fall under food safety to which Mike replied they would.

A participant asked if open burning on agricultural land is addressed in the EFP. Mike responded that it will be and that a specific committee is dealing with the matter.

Emerging Pollutants Workshop – Summary
Ted Smith, USEPA

Ted Smith provided a brief summary of the Emerging Pollutants Workshop held in Chicago on August 11-14 2003. The underlying motive of the workshop was the recognition of a number of emerging pollutants. A number of activities were carried out, including panel discussions on toxins resulting from incineration of electronics, radio oil and gas piping, platinum, asbestos, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. There were also several round table discussions and a presentation from the Food and Drug Association (FDA). The FDA recently reviewed current toxicology studies and levels and trends in humans and biota. Finally, it was announced that California had just passed a ban on Penta- and Octa-Brominated Diphenyl Ethers, flame retardants used in furniture foam and electronic goods, that will take effect in 2008.

On the last day of the workshop a summary discussion was held and it was determined that: (i) 15% of the USEPA’s budget should go into monitoring; (ii) more comprehensive programs on emerging pollutants are needed; and, (iii) close contact should be maintained between participants. There was also talk on the need to obtain information on exposure pathways and on recent toxic effects, and how to control the discharge of toxins, such as pharmaceuticals, into the environment. It was decided that the medical industry should be engaged on the control and limit of discharge.

Questions and Comments

A participant suggested that a summary document of what was discussed should be provided to everyone, and placed on the GLBTS web site. Ted replied that it would be a good idea to post the information from presentations on the web site and that he will inquire about the possibility of issuing a summary document.

A participant asked if there had been any discussion on ecological effects. Ted advised that such effects were discussed, particularly at the environmental levels, but were limited by a human health bias.

A participant asked if there was a consensus on what the emerging issues are. The participant also asked if this workshop covered the same subject matter as a similar workshop convened by the International Joint Commission (IJC) in February 2003. Ted responded that yes there was consensus on emerging issues, and that in his opinion the two workshops were different. At this point Allen Jones advised that the IJC workshop held in February summarized ecological effects and so, yes, there may have been a little overlap but nothing significant as the EPA workshop went into far more detail.

Overview of Upcoming Long Range Transport Workshop
S. Venkatesh, Environment Canada

Venkatesh advised that the workshop is scheduled for September 16 and 17 2003 at the Campus Inn in Ann Arbor, Michigan in conjunction with the International Joint Commission (IJC) meetings. The LRT workshop is being sponsored by Environment Canada, the USEPA, the GLBTS, and the IJC. Its aim is to review relevant information, identify critical knowledge gaps, and provide recommendations on future activities that will adequately address LRT. In preparation for the workshop, a background paper was prepared by Hans Martin, formerly research director of Environment Canada, and was sent to participants. The background paper was structured along the lines of the workshop sessions and set out a number of questions with first-cut answers. The complete report is available at <www.delta-institute.org>Exit disclaimer.

The workshop would be split into four sections, three of which will address emissions, atmospheric processes and modeling, and monitoring. The fourth is considered to be the most important session, as it will draw upon conclusions and recommendations from findings prior to and from the LRT workshop. The outline of the workshop program is as follows:

Agenda Planning

The GLBTS Integration Workgroup is scheduled to meet next in Chicago on December 17 2003. Suggested activities for inclusion on the agenda are listed as follows:

Concluding Remarks
Gary Gulezian and Danny Epstein

Gary thanked participants for attending the Integration Workgroup meeting. He affirmed their effort and commitment as having a valuable contribution to the success of the GLBTS.

Danny, too, thanked participants for their effort and contribution. He highlighted the PCB Recognition Awards initiative and encouraged the other Workgroups to explore such an initiative in their strategies. 

Attendees

Name Organization
Angemeer, Michael
Ceksters, Gunars
Cheema, Dal
Clare, John
De, Ken
Dove, Alice
Epstein, Danny
Granek, Fred
Gulezian, Gary
Hall, John
Hicknell, Mike
Jackson, John
Jones, Allan
Kalinauskas, Rimi
Kent, Ross
Krauel, Bob
Kuper, George
Li, Kent
McGaw, Jodi
McKenzie, James
Menkedick, John
Moore, Carolyn
Muldoon, Paul
Murray, Michael
Mylleville, Bailey
Painter, Scott
Parkinson, Tom
Phenicie, Dale
Phillips, Adrian
Phillips, E. Marie
Shaw, Judy
Smith, Ted
Stokes, Rachel
Strader, Evelyn
Thomas, Amy
Tseng, Tom
Venkatesh, S.
Vincent, Jennifer
Waffle, Alan
Wardlaw, Craig
Wong, Anita
Wooster, Margaret
Wright, Nathan
Wylie, Noel		 Enersource Hydro
Enersource Hydro
Enersource Hydro
Environment Canada
Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Environment Canada
Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement
USEPA
Hall & Associates
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Great Lakes United
Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee (C4)
Environment Canada
Stelpipe Ltd, Stelco Inc.
Environment Canada
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Stelpipe Ltd, Stelco Inc.
McKenzieParis Inc.
McKenzieParis Inc.
Battelle
Environment Canada
DELA
National Wildlife Federation
Great Lakes United
Environment Canada
Hydro One Inc.
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Slater Steels Inc.
USEPA
Syngenta Crop Protection Canada
USEPA
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Battelle
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Headwater Environmental Services
Environment Canada
Great Lakes United
Chiefs of Ontario
Hydro One Inc.

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.