![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
GLBTS Links
Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholders Forum
Integration Workgroup
December 4, 2002
Welcome, Introductions and Stakeholder Activity Updates
Gary Gulezian, Director Great Lakes National Program Office United States Environmental Protection Agency was pleased to welcome everyone to the integration workgroup. Gary mentioned that the stakeholder forum held yesterday went very well as interactive feedback was shared between all of the stakeholders. Danny Epstein, Director Environmental Protection Branch Environment Canada, thanked Jim Smith for filling in for him at the stakeholder forum. Danny mentioned that he could not attend the stakeholder forum because of a meeting in Washington and was sorry that he missed the meeting. Danny then took the opportunity to introduce John Douglas, the meeting facilitator, who was attending in place of James McKenzie. Activity updates then followed around the table.
Activity Updates
- Andy Buckspaw noted that 3 new reports have come out in the last few weeks titled (1) Getting Serious about Mercury, (2) Mercury Products Guide and (3) Identifying Mercury Deposition Problems in different Counties in Michigan. Andy is presently working on a report funded by GLNPO looking at the cost of mercury reduction in Michigan.
- Duck Kim, EC, is working on a project on dental deposition of mercury.
- Tony Kizlauskas noted that the alkyl lead national toxics reduction program released its first action plan on alkyl lead reduction.
- Chris Wolnik from the Canadian Center for Pollution Prevention mentioned the burn barrel website, and has finished work on a hospital P2 plan in Toronto which can be found on the Ontario Region website.
- Ted Smith mentioned that the progress report is available for all stakeholders. Comments on the annual report are to be made by January 3rd.
- Allan Waffle thanked the authors who helped produce the EC annual report and reminded all that the May 13-14 meetings will be held in Toronto, not in Windsor.
- Stakeholders expressed that representation at today meeting is limited because of the travel involved as well as because it is nearing to the end of the year, but interest still lies. Concern was also expressed over growing travel expenses. Gary Gulezian asked if Chicago was a good place to meet and asked for suggestions for other cities in which to convene meetings.
- Cornel Holder from the Defense National Stockpile Center
welcomed all of the stakeholders to make comments and visit the
Center’s website at
www.mercuryeis.com
. - Dave Cowgill presented the Legacy Act, which was signed 11/27/02 by the President. The Act authorized $270 million over 5 years from fiscal years 2004-2008. $50 million will go towards GLNPO for Projects (site characterization, monitoring, remediation, prevention), $3 million for research on technologies, and $1million to GLNPO for Public Information Programs. The Act will also give priority to remedial action for contaminated sediments.
- Bob Krauel gave an update on the Mercury Workgroup Workshop. Presentations were made by the Canadian and US dental associations and a wide range of topics were covered and included studies about amalgam waste in the dental community. Best management practices identified that mercury reductions can be made through amalgam waste management strategies. Regulatory limits as well as voluntary actions will be put together in a report. Other topics also covered at the meeting included scrap metals, and the Michigan Mercury study. The teleconference options were used however it was not the best application of that technology because of the length of time of the presentation. This is however a good system to use in future sessions but perhaps not for larger sessions.
- Danny Epstein asked if there is an opportunity through binational.com to broadcast meetings over the Internet. Bailey responded that it costs 55cents/minute to see power point presentations live. Web conferencing is a powerful idea as anyone with Internet and a telephone can attend a session. Danny also noted that industry cannot afford to come to numerous meetings because of travel expenses. Teleconference and web conferences are therefore something to consider for a topic of discussion at future Integration Group meetings.
Workgroup Meeting Report–out from December 2nd and 3rd and Issues that need to be raised to the Integration Workgroup
Dioxin/Furan – Erin Newman, US EPA
Not many changes have to be made to the present version of
the progress report. The workgroup discussed cancer and non-cancer
risk of dioxin and furan. Members were informed about the burn
barrels website,
http://www.burnbarrel.org/
.
The question was asked of whether BTS should contact the website to
post its upcoming burn barrel strategy. Burning garbage is not
illegal in many states. In Minnesota however burning is illegal and
therefore may be a good place to start implementing the strategy.
The burn barrel strategy is still in draft format and comments are
still welcomed. Please send feedback to the chairs so that the
strategy can be finalized.
Both Canada and the US are gathering information on ash management and ash testing. EC has gathered info on landfill fires. Should the area of furan/dioxin reduction be closed as 99% reductions have been reached? Both countries are developing national programs addressing treated wood. The BTS has offered its services to assist them but each country will have to take its own lead.
NPRI and TRI will be used to examine how significant different sectors are contributing to Dioxin and Furan emissions. Danny asked if we have any idea on the impact that burn barrels have on the Lake Superior Basin. The BTS has previously invested in such projects; have these projects seen any results? Anita responded that environmental indicators are showing reductions in dioxins/furans in the region. It is however hard to track sources especially for burn barrels. Tracking all of the sources will take several years and finding trends in data collected will take even longer as even environmental indicators require approximately five years of study to render a trend assumption. Andy then mentioned that Joe Stepan concluded in his study that despite all the efforts, no reductions were seen in burn barrel use. Danny then asked if it is still worth investing in such projects if we are not seeing any results. Anita and Erin both responded that it is worth continuing funding the effort. Gary then commented that BTS must also invest in follow-up monitoring which is always problematic in government programs.
PCB – Ken De, EC
Two presentations were made at the stakeholder
forum. John Hall spoke about how one can help PCB owners phase out
PCBs in their facilities. The second presentation discussed
environmental and economic benefits of legislation being
contemplated and how long it will take to phase out PCB’s using
different strategies. The workgroup suggested that a pilot project
to recognize companies that have accomplished phase-outs and their
pro-active efforts. The workgroup will try and finalize this
initiative as soon as possible. The workgroup has also mailed out
commitment letters and have updated their website including the
separate PCB website. Presently they have reached a plateau in PCB
reductions at 84%. Financial and insurance incentives are options to
help promote further reductions amongst facility owners. The
benefits of ISO registration were also discussed and the pros and
cons of it remaining as a voluntary agreement to help PCB phase out
were discussed.
A stakeholder had questions as to the insurance incentives. Ken clarified that the plan will motivate owners to reduce PCB use by offering such incentives. No current pilot projects or projects are underway and the idea is only at its preliminary phase. Andy commented that the Great Lakes Protection Fund is funding a project looking at ways to lessen the cost of insurance for substance reductions. Andy was not sure if PCBs were on the list but did not think that they were. The Telus Institute in Boston is conducting this study. Ken requested Andy to send him more information so he can do some follow up.
BaP/HCB – Steve Rosenthal, US EPA
Information gathering and unknown emission sources were
discussed; however, the biggest source of HCB seems to be pesticide
application. Dale Phenicie has been working with pesticide
manufacturers to determine the extent of pesticide application
impact. The commission’s inventory and the trajectory analysis for
other PAHs indicate the air direction. This data showed that high
sources were coming from high HPC releases. Success stories from
industry were also discussed at the forum and new emissions sources
were identified through the NPRI.
Follow up activity included a presentation on scrap tire piles and emissions. One of the projects that the workgroup will conduct is the creation of marketing techniques to promote recycling of scrap tire piles. The largest source of BaP is residential wood combustion. The benefits of using EPA approved stoves, and the energy efficiency associated with it, need to be communicated. Jim Collins presented a program on Canadian incentives to hold workshops on wood stove burning safety.
Other Comments
Gary Gulezian commented that the Integration Group meeting
is a forum to look at what is happening within the workgroups and to
discuss how the Integration Group can get involved and assist in
these initiatives. The insurance incentive is a project that the
Integration Group may want to propose as an inquiry on behalf of the
BTS.
The question of gaps in missing source inventories was then brought up as this continues to be a problem for numerous workgroups. Concern remains on sources that are especially hard to identify. Lin Kaatz offered to email a study on PCB source identification in the Great Lake to the group once it is complete.
Communications and Outreach Plan – Madhu Malhotra and Tony Kizlauskas
The goal of the communications strategy is to:
- Promote the Strategy’s activities, its successes and the positive relationships between the partners in the Strategy.
- Engage new stakeholder involvement and sustain and broaden the involvement of existing stakeholders.
The following were presented as key messages delivered through the Communications and Outreach Plan:
- Persistent pollutants continue to present hazards to human health and the health of ecosystems within the Great Lakes Basin.
- Canada and the United States are working together to eliminate persistent toxic chemicals from the Great Lakes Basin.
- Governments cannot do it alone. To attain the goal of virtual elimination of persistent toxic chemicals, all sectors of the Basin must participate.
- The Strategy is integral to meeting obligations under the 1987 Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
- Canada and the United States have already made strides, and are dedicated to continue working towards the common goal of virtually eliminating persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances from the Great Lakes Basin in partnership with stakeholders.
Discussions around the key messages included comments from numerous stakeholders:
- Certain stakeholders did not agree with the word “continue” in the first key message. They argued that because the BTS is succeeding in its efforts to reduce persistent pollutants then these pollutants will not continue to be hazards to human health in the future. Others however argued that the word “continue” must remain in order to reinforce that the presence of certain pollutants is still a problem and reality is that pollutants will continue to be hazardous in the future. As previous challenges to eliminate certain pollutants are met, new substances with new challenges will arise. A refuting comment was made stating that the BTS’s goals are virtual elimination and not just meeting the challenge goals. Therefore, one-day pollutants will cease to exist and therefore the word “continue” must be changed.
- Another stakeholder suggested that one of the key messages should state the Strategy’s accomplishments. This can be a combined message that discusses both progress that has been made and progress that the BTS will make in the future. This combination will allow for a complementary and not a contradictory message. However progress on reducing certain substances is not being made. Does this need to be addressed?
- It was also suggested that the BTS have more media coverage at the release of its next annual report.
- Another stakeholder pointed out that different audiences need different messages. Comments followed that the Strategy was not meant for specific constituencies and was written for a general audience.
- Gary then concluded that the messages that need to be relayed are to be clearer and the key messages will be reworked. Those who wish to give more feedback were asked to send comments to Madhu or Tony by January 1st.
Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Roundtable – Jinni Cook and Joy Scrogum, Waste Management Resource Center
Jinni and Joy presented an overview of the services and resources
that the Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable (GLRPPR)
has to offer to the BTS. Their website is located at
www.glrppr.org
.
GLRPPR goals include:
- Resource coordination and information sharing exchange
- Network with peer organizations
- Conference organization
- Develop and maintain a roster of members
- Enhance and support regional technical resources
Services include:
- Topic hubs and sector resources
- Help desk
- Two conferences each year
- 17 listserves
- Searchable contacts database
- Regional and National environmental news
- Information on funding opportunities
- Calendar of State and Regional events, trainings and conferences
- Content sharing
- Marketing platform
- Information library
- Networking platform.
Other comments:
- GLRPPR is linked to the Great Lakes Information Network.
- There is no membership fee for individual members or for basic membership
- Over 400 people subscribe to its newsletter
- Approximately 12,000 visit its website every month; however, there is no record of who those individuals are.
Level II Substances – An Industry Perspective – Dale Phenicie
The intent of this presentation was to report on what is happening in regards to industry sources and Level II substances. Currently there are 18 substances on the Level II substances list. Dale noted that these substances either need to be addressed by pollution prevention activities, need more study or understanding, or are substances that are regulated via the national programs with permit limits.
The study presented was conducted by using annual data submitted by each facility. Each year, a number of facilities report their emissions through their respective national programs. The quantities of substances were divided by the number of facilities in order to get a better sense of the trends of P2 action, (i.e., index of what may have happened to that substance). The study found that substance-reporting levels varied over a number of years, as did the number of reporting facilities. A suggestion was put forth to put values into percentages rather then in total lbs/facility in future studies.
Andy asked if it was possible to show off-site transfers and asked if by-products of chemicals were considered as sources of dioxin/furan emissions. Erin responded that municipal wastes are in the dioxin inventory, and that some facilities have on site incinerators. Releases from these facilities can be collected; however, other facilities ship their waste to off-site incinerators. It is difficult to report the releases of such facilities.
The Industry P2 Program Reviews were found through an online literature review. The following conclusions were made:
- TRI reports show downward trends for tier II substances
- In-basin tri-reporting facilities are a minor sub-set of national set
- Industry P2 programs are addressing tier II substances
- Literature reports tier II substance reductions and low levels of concern for tier II substances
- A basis for tier II compound de-listing can be drawn from P2 review information
Comments, Questions and Answers:
- How many Level II substances are being used and exported in products? Dale responded that cadmium, dichlorobenzene, dichlorobenzadene (very toxic), and ECB are a pigment, and Lindaine are used and exported in products.
- This presentation did not look at transfers of products. The study cannot therefore make a conclusion that Level II substances are being phased out. Dale responded that the purpose for the presentation was just to learn more about Level II substances and to make sure that these substances are to be used. The purpose was not to make any definite conclusions. The purpose of the presentation was also to get assurance that Level I substances are of more concern then Level II substances. The presentation provided some comfort in knowing that yes they do not present as much of a threat as Level 1 substances.
- Gary Gulezian then thanked Dale and his team for their efforts to put the presentation together. He highlighted two components from the presentation. First, the relevancy of substances produced and used by the Great Lakes industry and whether or not they are causing harm. And secondly, what value can be added by elevating these substances to a higher level of importance; i.e., how will reducing these substance help environmental conditions?
- A stakeholder commented that sometimes there are discrepancies between databases. He suggested looking at other data sources and literature reviews done by broader organizations for more information.
Administrative Processes –
Linkages between BEC, IJC and the GLBTS
– Susan Nameth
This presentation was offered to help the Integration Group better understand the linkages between the Binational Toxics Strategy and other administrative or direction-setting bodies in the Great Lakes Region. The Strategy is a joint cooperative between the IJC, US EPA, and EC. The GLBTS was initiated after an IJC call for governments to virtually eliminate the persistence of toxic substances in its 7th Biennial Report in 1994. The GLBTS was singed in April 1997.
The IJC takes advice from the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board and the International Air Quality Advisory Board in order to develop its reports and recommendations. Various domestic policies and programs including the GLBTS report to the IJC on the progress of its programs and measures to reduce toxic substances. The Binational Executive Committee (BEC) is co-chaired by EC and US EPA. Parties in cooperation with State and Provincial governments meet twice a year to coordinate their respective work plans and evaluate progress made. Decision-making and strategic direction setting for the BTS is done by BEC.
Comments, questions and answers:
- If Level I substances are to be added to the agreement, who would be involved in making this decision? Susan responded that one would assume that BEC would be responsible for making such a decision.
- A stakeholder commented that the presentation showed how things should work but not really how they do work because often the Commissioners have ignored the suggestions of the reports provided to them by the Boards.
- Susan was asked about her own experience with COA negotiations and if she felt that they were similar or different to the BTS? Susan responded that COA is the Canadian domestic mechanism to ensure that the water quality agreement is met. There are over a hundred parallels between the goals of the BTS regarding toxic substances and COA. Danny also responded to this question and stated that originally the purpose of COA was to get provincial commitments to the water quality agreement. COA is also a CEPA document making it legally binding. Gary commented that the BTS is different from COA because it is not legally binding, and is a multiparty agreement and consensus document expressing the views of all of its parties.
Agenda Planning
- Invite Tim Lindsey, University of Illinois – Waste Management Research Center
- Invite someone from the Telus Institute to speak on the subject of Insurance Partnerships with industry and obtaining better insurance rates for companies working on P2 initiatives. Tim Brown, Alan Buckspaw and Margaret are working with Telus on a project to obtain a better insurance rate for companies working on P2 initiatives.
- Invite the Canadian AutoWorkers to deliver a presentation on their nation-wide campaign promoting recyclable cars. Margaret recommended Ken Bondy from the Windsor Local as a contact person. (Relation to BTS is through Mercury, Cadmium, BCPs – focus of the presentation should be on BTS Level I substances).
- Suggestion from Margaret to discuss Contaminated Sediments to ensure that planning is in place if the Legacy Act is ready to fund sediment remediation projects.
- Ted Smith mentioned that EC and EPA will be participating on an IJC workshop discussing Emerging Issues – Physical and Biological Affecting Future Policy. Recommendation that BTS might want someone to come give a summary of what was discussed at the workshop.
- Danny suggested a preliminary/progress report presentation on the Severn Sound Environmental Association Pilot Project.
- Suggestion to discuss the Lake Erie Lamp POTW Project – Level I substance reduction.
- Gary suggested a discussion/presentation on the Strategy’s chemical selection process.
- Ted suggested discussion/presentation on the Chemical Strategies Partnership. Large companies are hiring firms to manage inventories. The firms make profits by minimizing the company’s inventory. Suggestion to have someone from one of these companies and speak about this type of partnership.
- George noted that too few items suggested relate to workgroup efforts. Gary acknowledged George’s point, noting a desire to focus on workgroup initiatives.
- Bob suggested looking at environmental trends and having this topic as a general standing agenda item – scientists involved with projects reporting new findings, etc. might be invited to present.
- Relative Trend Information
- Gary suggested a discussion around the potential use of LaMPS to enhance workgroup objectives discussion.
It was recommended that agenda items relate to workgroup efforts. The focus of Integration Group meetings should be on workgroup initiatives and how the Integration Group can assist workgroup projects and initiatives.
Concluding Remarks
Danny Epstein concluded by stating that he was very pleased with the discussions that took place both today and over the past year. He noted that the BTS is now in a different phase given of the marker that we laid down in May 2002. Discussion over the next year will shape the future of the BTS as well as what will happen toward 2007. Danny then thanked all of participants for their continued support and cooperation and marked his appreciation for everyone’s time and commitment. Gary also thanked everyone for attending and contributing to the discussion.
Attendees
|
Abel, Todd Adsit, Dan Brauer, Sue Buchsbaum, Andy Cain, Alexis Collins, James Cowgill, David De, Ken, Downes, James Epstein, Danny Filyk, Greg Gulezian, Gary Hogg, Darryl Holder, Cornel Jackson, John Kaatz Chary, Lin Kim, Duck Kizlauskas, Anthony Krauel, Bob Kuper, George Lopes, Edwina Lynch, Dennis Madsen, Rees Malhotra, Madhu |
McAlear, Hugh Menkedick, John Michajluk, Shawn Mylleville, Bailey Nameth, Susan Nettesheim, Todd Phillips, E. Marie Piekarz, Darrell Rosenthal, Steven Sasnett, Sam Smith, Jim Smith, Ted Strader, Evelyn Thomas, Amy Thomas, Vicki Tseng, Tom Van Loon, James Waffle, Alan Wardlaw, Craig White, Erin Wolnik, Chris Wooster, Margaret Yang, Cindy Yang, Karen |