Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholder Forum

Integration Workgroup
February 25, 2003
The Cleary International Center, Windsor Ontario

Welcoming Remarks, Introductions, and Stakeholder Activity Updates 

James McKenzie, the meeting facilitator, introduced himself and welcomed everyone to the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Integration Workgroup meeting. He then called upon Jim Smith, Acting/Regional Director, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada, and Gary Gulezian, Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Jim welcomed participants and informed members that the draft annual progress report was available in CD format. The final version of the report will be released and circulated on March 17th. Gary also welcomed participants and expressed his pleasure at seeing so many stakeholders. He also asked for their thoughts on means by which to attract a broader cross-section of participants. 

Activity Updates 

Communication Plan:
Karen Yang gave an update on the Communication Plan. The draft plan was presented at the last meeting and a final draft was to be presented at this meeting. The planned timing, however, has been delayed given the need of a key member working on the plan to be away on sick leave. For that reason, the plan has not yet been completed, but an information paper is available describing the progress of the plan. It was hoped that a final draft would be released the week of March 17th. 

Municipal Toxics Management Strategy for Severn Sound:
Alan Waffle provided an update on the progress of the Severn Sound Association pilot project. The project involves identifying and quantifying the storage, release, and use of persistent toxic substances listed in the Strategy and local chemicals of concern for pollution prevention opportunities. The scope of work also includes conducting consultations with the eight municipalities in the Severn Sound area concerning a toxics management strategy. Municipal staff are being contacted for information concerning processes using or producing toxic substances, pollution prevention processes, waste reduction, recycling, treatment processes, and levels of toxic substances in sewers and bio-solids. The information collected will help to develop a toxics management strategy for active releases or discharges of Strategy substances. It is anticipated that Keith Sherman, the project manager, will provide a report of the pilot project at the May Integration Group meeting in Toronto. 

George Kuper noted that, like government, industry is having budgetary constraints and has had to cut travel funding which, in turn, has resulted in fewer industry representatives attending this meeting. 

Ted Smith suggested that more time be allocated for agenda planning at the end of each meeting in order to facilitate a broader discussion of the Strategy’s direction and collective expectations for future meetings. 

Paul Drca, of the City of Windsor, commented that Windsor has the largest pollution control problem in the region, yet the municipality was unaware of the Strategy until a representative came upon a description of the Strategy on the International Joint Commission’s website. Gary Gulezian responded by asking the participants for their suggestions on better ways to publicize the activities of both the Integration Group and the Strategy. Susan Nameth and Alan Waffle added that the distribution list only includes people who have previously attended Stakeholder Forums and Integration Group meetings. Gary then suggested that the Integration Group explore ways to broaden its distribution list. 

Lake Erie Basin POTW Project – Abby Jarka, Delta Institute 

Abby Jarka offered a presentation on current work being undertaken by the Delta Institute regarding Pollution Prevention (P2) initiatives and Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs). Her objective was to review the Institute’s outreach activities in the POTW sector in the Lake Erie Basin, with a special focus on mercury reduction activities. POTWs were identified as mercury dischargers to the Lake Erie Basin. The Institute made the decision to work with POTWs because of their authority over the discharge of substances. Currently only 6% of major POTW permits contain mercury limits and only 10% require monitoring. Moreover, the majority of mercury discharges are not being addressed in any regulatory program. Mercury levels in the Kahago region in 2001 averaged 27ng/l and decreased to 4 ng/l in 2002. The current regulatory level is currently 1.5 ng/l. The Institute hopes to reduce POTW mercury discharge to regulated levels. 

Mercury discharges come from various sources including dental offices, hospitals, homes, schools, industry, urban runoff in combined sewer areas, and others. The top three mercury uses/users include thermostats (28%), hospitals and medical facilities (21%), and dental facilities (16%). The Institute commenced its efforts in Ohio where very little outreach was being undertaken with mercury source emitters. The Institute will address this problem by introducing the Partner POTW Reduction program that includes the following measures: 

  1. Source Identification – assist POTWs to identify sources of discharge to their site
  2. Sector-specific mercury reduction strategies for discharges
  3. Search for mercury use at treatment plants
  4. Mercury reduction education for the general public, health professionals, teachers, lab personnel, etc.

The Mercury reduction strategies will be specific to each source and/or sector while taking advantage of the low regulatory approach. The Delta Institute is not looking to the command and control model for reductions, but will work with the discharge sources through separate outreach programs and by bringing them together through a mercury reduction and reclamation workgroup/forum. Mercury dischargers will also be linked to broader watershed efforts, as their cooperation is necessary for the complete elimination of mercury discharge. It will begin its outreach efforts by focusing on interested members to raise awareness on mercury issues and build public momentum. Efforts will also include developing a link between Lake Erie resources and the Black River watershed. 

Other Comments; Questions and Answers
The Delta Institute has examined mercury effluent from crematoria in its source sector study; however, in the source areas of the program focus, crematoria were not source distributors. The Institute has asked crematoria operators to participate in stakeholder forums. 

A question was posed about presenting the project to regulators. Gary Gulezian responded that the U. S. EPA is already looking at regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to mercury reduction and it was also aware of this project. 

Abby was asked about her opinion on the amount of mercury in the environment coming from non-point sources such as soil as compared to mercury from POTWs. She responded by noting that POTWs are not the largest source of mercury discharges, however they occupy a unique niche in the community that allows them to influence mercury reduction within the community. 

Jim Smith commented that 60 years of mercury build up presently exists in municipal sewer pipes. He then asked how that issue could be addressed, and suggested that it be a topic for future discussion at the Mercury Workgroup. Abby responded that the Delta Institute is currently not looking at this problem, but the issue has come up. She noted as well that POTWs are concerned that they will get a slug of mercury entering their systems from an unidentified source as one-shot releases are more difficult to monitor. 

Ted Smith asked for more information about the incentive approach used by the Delta Institute. Abby responded that they are trying to use incentives to promote the use of separators in dentist offices, as a measure of best practice. Dentist offices are not required to install separators and smaller treatment plants feel restricted to introducing such a regulation out of fear of a potential backlash from the Dental Association (which is opposed to regulating separators). Providing dentist offices with incentives and perks may encourage them to implement separators (e.g., reduced fees, no yearly checks, etc.). 

Chemical Management Strategies - Jill Kauffman Johnson, Chemical Strategies Partnership (CSP) 

Jill Kauffman Johnson, Executive Director of Chemical Strategies Partnership (CSP), provided a presentation about CSP efforts to bring change to the chemical supply chain. CSP promotes the economic and an environmental benefit of chemical management services (CMS). CMS is a strategic, long-term relationship in which a service provider supplies and manages a customer’s chemicals and services, and earns a profit on the quality of the services delivered rather than the volume of chemicals sold. CMS is a new and non-traditional way of doing business. It focuses on the lifestyle cost rather than the material cost of chemicals, as well as unit pricing, gain sharing, supplier-driven chemical management, partnerships, and systems approach. The model allows for aligned incentives where both the service provider and the buyer want to decrease the lifecycle cost (material, labor, waste management) resulting in potential costs savings and environment gains for both parties. 

CSP studies identified a savings of 5-25% to customers in the first year of a CMS program followed by long term savings of 30-80%.  Eighty per cent of customers also report a decrease in chemical volume used. Benefits of the CMS approach include improved data management, inventory management and delivery, reduced chemical purchase costs, waste costs, labor costs, and overhead/fixed costs, and decreased process down time.  Environment benefits include a reduction in chemical use and waste, improved environmental information management, and the elimination of hazardous materials.  Barriers to CMS implementation are that chemicals are only a small percentage of overall operating costs, high perceived transaction costs, lack of management support, supplier limitations, and a lack of credible information. Case studies and data have recently been made available to the public through CSP. Three case studies of companies using CMS were presented: General Motors, Raytheon, and Seagate Technology. CSP will continue to address barriers and will make efforts to promote CMS by continuing to conduct pilot programs, introduce CMS to new sectors, develop tools to better disseminate information, and promote CMS internationally. CSP will conduct these activities with the support of the U. S. EPA, state governments, foundations, and CMS forum members. 

Other Comments; Questions and Answers
The Ford Plant in Oakville, Ontario, has been using CMS to accrue cost savings. Environmental benefits, though not a primary motivating factor for using the model, have resulted as well. 

Purchasing cooperatives of companies in close geographic proximity have shared the cost of implementing a CMS program. The CSP found that this system did not work in previous case studies, but they are building on lessons learned and working to implement a pilot strategy in Detroit where industry is very concentrated. 

A question was posed about whether chemical manufacturers feel threatened by CMS. Jill responded that many have created their own service divisions in an attempt to diversify income-generating services. They are also asking organizations like CSP to educate their workers in an effort to create new services. 

James McKenzie then asked participants to reflect on this initiative and comment on its utility for advancing the Strategy’s goals. 

It was suggested that CMS could be applied in the agriculture sector and that there are increasing opportunities for CMS in Canada. The Strategy could involve the LaMPs as a conduit for disseminating CMS information to others. 

Gary Gulezian commented that the model has potential applicability to Level I substances. He noted, however, the possibility that reductions in percentage use of one substance may lead to an increase in another substance. 

Alan Waffle suggested having the Severn Sound Association look at CMS and incorporate it in the next stages of the pilot project. He also noted that the model might be more applicable to Level II rather then Level I substances. 

George Kuper asked what the government is or will be doing to promote such models. Gary Gulezian responded that any potential linkages with government should be presented to Substance-specific Workgroups. 

Outreach and Reward Strategy for Accelerated Phase-out of PCBs – Ken De, Environment Canada and Craig Wardlaw, Headwater Environment Services 

The PCB Workgroup is in the process of accelerating PCB phase-out by working toward an incentive/reward strategy for participating stakeholders. This presentation sought feedback on the program and asked participants to consider the transferability of such a program to other Strategy toxics. 

Proposed revisions to the Canadian PCB regulations will be introduced by the end of 2003 mandating new PCB phase-out dates. The dates have not been finalized because of ongoing discussions with stakeholders and industry groups; however, most groups are in support of the proposed phase-out timeframe. The Workgroup hopes that the proposed outreach and reward strategy, which will run from 2003-2005, will assist in the PCB phase-out process. The outreach and reward program includes the following strategies: 

Other Comments; Questions and Answers
A question was posed about whether the value of the award is a sufficient incentive to motivate PCB owners. Ken responded with the view that recognition is preferable to no recognition. 

A suggestion was offered that companies should be asked about what kind of incentive would be meaningful for them. 

A participant noted that Ford and General Motors have committed to reducing PCBs both in North America and internationally. What was the motivating factor for doing so? We need to learn from their experiences and find linkages between strategies that can work in more than one area/sector. 

A suggestion was offered that Environment Canada should consider industry loans to help transform expensive technologies to non-PCB use. The high cost of phase-out may be deterring companies. Jim Smith responded that loan programs were looked at a few years ago but were not implemented. Jim noted the need to re-examine this issue, especially with the passing of the new regulations. 

George Kuper suggested that the commitment letter should do 3 things:

  1. Remind PCB owners of their liabilities
  2. Explain that the costs to dispose of PCBs today are much less than future costs. Therefore, the longer they wait to dispose, the more expensive it will be. Increased participation in disposal will in turn lead to lower disposal costs
  3. Encourage them to dispose now before new regulations are brought forth.

Craig responded that some companies do not even want to take the time to talk to the PCB Workgroup representatives. Convincing them of the above-stated benefits has therefore been a difficult task. The companies that have thus far responded to the commitment letter are those that either:

Ted Smith asked if George’s suggestions were included in the letter and if they are going to be included in the letter. Craig responded that they would be included. Ken added that follow-up phone calls to the companies would also address those three issues. 

Update on planning for the LRT Workshop and Recent Results from Environment Canada’s Research on Transport of Lindane to the Great Lakes Basin –Venkatesh, EC 

The purpose of this presentation was to provide informational details on the Long Range Transport (LRT) workshop including the preparation of a working paper, and the research results of the transportation of lindane from its application in the Prairies to the Great Lakes Basin. LRT brings numerous challenges to the Great Lakes Basin which were presented in the March 2000 report titled “LRT of Persistent Toxic Substances to the Great Lakes: Review and Assessment of Recent Literature.” The second major action item is a workshop being planned for June 2003 in Chicago and which will likely be in conjunction with IAGLR. The planning team is presently in the process of developing a pre-workshop paper to provide the basis for discussion on the future course of the LRT scientific program within the Strategy. The purpose of the paper will be to inform workshop participants on the state of the science and the scope of the workshop, as well as to initiate discussion on key issues prior to the meeting to help provide focus to the meeting discussions. 

Venkatesh presented a draft outline of the background paper. The paper will look at existing chemicals and new and emerging contaminants as well as ways to prevent damage from these emerging contaminants. The paper will also examine emissions, including both continental and extra-continental aspects affecting the Great Lakes Basin, atmospheric transport and transformation processes, deposition processes, modeling, monitoring both within the Basin and continent-wide, and, the Ecosystem Approach and its relevance to atmospheric studies. 

A participant commented that the Mercury Workgroup should be included in the workshop. 

A model demonstrating the impact of gamma-HCH usage in Canada on the Great Lakes Ecosystem was then presented. Environment Canada in conjunction with the Pesticides Management and Regulatory Agency conducted the study. They coupled atmospheric transport and soil-air exchange to study lindane usage and fresh emission in 1998. The study considered the long-range transport of lindane affecting the Great Lakes Basin. Saskatchewan and Alberta use ten times more lindane than Ontario and Quebec primarily due to canola production. 

Other Comments; Questions and Answers
The model took into account the fate of lindane as it moved across the country (i.e., wet and dry decomposition, degradation into the soil and into the atmosphere). 

Separate concentrations of pesticides in soil and water can be identified in the models. 

The affects of international usage of lindane must be accounted for especially in areas such as China or Russia where it is heavily used. Venkatesh explained that a 200-resolution global model has already been done detailing inventory for high-usage countries. Global modeling was driven by high concentrations of pesticides in the Arctic in an effort to find where these pesticides came from, as they are not used in the Arctic region. The model identified a link between international emissions and local effects. 

Protecting Jobs and the Environment: Extended Producer Responsibility – Ken Bondy, Canadian Auto Workers Windsor Regional Environment Council (CAW WREC) 

Ken provided a presentation on the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) management model and discussed the potential benefits it provides to the environment, autoworkers, and the Strategy. It is his organization's view that the EPR management model promotes new and green technology while securing good paying, environmentally responsible jobs for future generation autoworkers. EPR extends the manufacturers responsibility to the entire life cycle of the product from development to dismantle or from “cradle to grave.”  The environmental mandate of the model encourages companies to design products that are non-toxic, highly reusable, and recyclable. Thinking environmentally while developing their products can help reduce waste and cost of dismantling the product. 

Ken presented the European example where legislation currently regulates the disposal of vehicles manufactured and sold in European Union Member States. The European Union end-of-life-vehicle directive (ELV) places the responsibility for vehicle disposal primarily on producers and requires them to eliminate the use of many materials, provide car buyers with dismantling instructions, and meet reporting and information requirements while providing a significant portion of costs for these measures.  Benefits include reduced worker exposure to toxins, improved environments, and potential for job creation. 

Other Comments; Questions and Answers
A participant commented that 80% of vehicles today are recycled, noting that Ford has a vehicle-recycling unit and that all three North American car manufacturers have such departments and meet commonly at the Vehicle Recycling Partnership.  Ken was asked for his view of the effects of new legislation and how it could affect the current dismantling industry.  Ken responded that a few years ago, Ford decided to close down a few dismantling locations and that many of these sites could be re-opened.  Present junkyards and scrap yards would however also continue to exist. The legislation would ensure that all toxic parts of cars are recycled and not left in the scrap yards. 

A participant commented that a new Canadian PCB regulation would be introduced that includes a component on auto shredder residue as they contain PCBs. 

A participant asked if such initiatives would add cost to car buyers.  Ken responded that the CAW does not want to see the cost passed on to the consumer.  They hope that manufacturers will pay for costs especially if legislation is passed.  Manufacturers will have the incentive to sell the new design of cars to the Canadian market.  Another participant added that the cost will be 50-100$ per car. 

Report out on IJC Science Advisory Board Workshop - Deb Swackhammer, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 

Deb Swackhammer reported on the IJC Science Advisory Board Workshop that took place in February 2003. Thirty-five participants were invited to the workshop to discuss six main themes: vision for the future, new non-chemical stressors, new chemicals, new effects, changing ecology, and new policies.  Each theme was addressed by a lead discussant followed by a respondent.  A facilitated dialogue on the speakers’ remarks then followed. The workshop resulted in the following preliminary findings: 

Future concerns include new contaminants and their effects, nutrient loading, exotic species, and shoreline/basin development and sprawl.  Findings related to chemicals include the use of QSAR, a tool used to predict chemical productivity, monitoring emerging chemicals, enhancing monitoring, data sharing, data management, and ecological forecasting.  Recommendations coming out of the workshop also included establishing a binational integrated Great Lakes Observing System and supporting research to conduct and validate QSAR assessments. 

Other Comments, Questions and Answers
A participant asked about the finding that no new challenges were identified.  Deb responded that discussion focused on existing problems given the significant threat they pose. 

A participant suggested that perhaps the reason for not identifying new challenges was due to the fact that existing resources have only focused on solving the old issues.  Deb responded that there is a need for more research and a sustained monitoring program. 

Chemical Evaluation Protocol – Ted Smith, U. S. EPA – GLNPO 

Ted Smith introduced the notion of developing a chemical evaluation protocol for the Strategy. The protocol will be used to address and determine whether any Level II substance should be elevated to the Level I list, whether new substances that present a threat to the Great Lakes ecosystem should be considered for inclusion in the Level I or II lists, and whether any other changes should be made.  It is felt that the Strategy needs to create a decision tree model to decide how it will address emerging substances of concern.  Ted then asked participants for suggestions and ideas for a draft protocol on chemical evaluation. 

Other Comments, Questions and Answers
Participants asked whether a draft could be made available prior to the May Integration Group meeting to allow for review.  Ted responded that a draft would be distributed to participants sometime in April, prior to the chemical committee meeting. 

George Kuper asked if stakeholders would be consulted throughout the development of a protocol.  Gary Gulezian responded that the protocol would be created in conjunction with participants using the next Integration Group meeting as a forum for discussion.  The Strategy will build on work being done elsewhere to identify potential chemicals of concern.  The protocol will look at these chemicals, their effects in the Great Lakes area, and what the Strategy might do to address them.  Ted Smith added that the protocol would be a map to address emerging threats. 

Canada-Ontario Agreement – Harmful Pollutants Annex, Tom Tseng, Environment Canada 

In 1994 the Canadian and Ontario governments signed the Canadian-Ontario Agreement (COA). Tom provided updates on changes introduced to the COA in 2002 (“new COA”).  The new COA will continue progress towards the virtual elimination of persistent bioaccumulative toxic substances as well as the significant reduction of other harmful pollutants.  “Other harmful pollutants” were expanded or “redefined” to include VOCs, NOx, Sox, and PM in the updated agreement.  Lessons learned over the past ten years have helped in the development of the new deliverables and targets.  Results will be achieved using a mixture of tools including partnerships, regulations and legal instruments, science and research, linked monitoring, and education and discussion.  The results of the new efforts will hopefully lead to the following: 

Other Comments; Questions and Answers
A participant sought clarification about the inclusion of Strategy goals in the new COA. Tom responded by explaining that the Strategy is a federal government initiative and that the Ontario and Canadian governments are working through COA to achieve binational commitments. 

A question was posed about the funding commitments by Canada to Ontario and the COA.  Ken responded that they have a workshare agreement through the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, and that the federal government has allocated $15 million to the provinces over the next five years. 

Agenda Planning 

James McKenzie invited participants to comment on the agenda planning process and specifically to address whether the content of meeting agendas has been productive. Ted Smith also asked stakeholders to comment on what they would like to see in future Integration Group meeting agendas, what their expectations are, and if they have been satisfied with previous agendas. 

George Kuper expressed concern about items being included on agendas that do not directly relate to Strategy objectives.  He offered the following suggestions:

Other participants agreed with George’s comments and voiced concerns that meeting objectives should reflect Workgroup activities. 

Other suggestions Included:

Suggestions for future Integration Group agenda items: 

Suggested Agenda Items for the May 2003 Integration Group Meeting: 

Suggestions for an improved Agenda

A participant suggested that there should be more opportunities to discuss impediments to success.  For example, the industry boiler project offers potential cost effectiveness combined with reduced impacts to the environment.  The project has however been a difficult sell for the Strategy.  Why this has been the case must be examined. 

A participant commented that there are significant sociological barriers.  The Strategy should be looking at such social barriers that act as impediments to success. 

Invite Workgroup co-chairs, twice a year, to offer presentations on the experiences of the Workgroups: what has worked; what has not, etc.  This would provide an opportunity to learn from their experiences and to offer advice. This would also provide the Integration Group the opportunity to link more directly with Workgroups. 

The next Integration Group meeting will be held in Toronto on May 15, 2003. The Stakeholder Forum meeting will be held on May 14, 2003. The CEC is hosting a SMOC meeting in Toronto on May 13, 2003.  CEC members will be attending the Stakeholder Forum.

Attendees

Adsit, Dan
Ford Motor Company

Aspen, David
General Motors

Bondy, Ken
Canadian Auto Workers

Boyer, Peter
International Joint Commission

Bratzel, Marty
International Joint Commission

Cantrill , John
Lake Superior Binational Program
USEPA/Great Lakes National Program Office

Cirino, Yamille
U. S. EPA – GLNPO

Cumming, Brad
Environment Canada

De, Ken
Environment Canada

Drca, Paul
Corporation of the City of Windsor

Fryzuk, Lori
Environment Canada

Gulezian, Gary
U. S. EPA – GLNPO

Hopkins, Stephen
U. S. EPA Region 5

Hopkins, Dan
U. S. EPA Region 5

Jacobs, Dean
Walpole Island Heritage Centre

Jarka, Abby
Delta Institute

Johnson, Jill Kauffman
General Motors

Jones, Allan
Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee

Kuper, George
Council of Great Lakes Industries

Lipman, Zoe
National Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes Office

Mahon, Jim
Great Lakes United

McAlear, Hugh
US Army Northern Regional Environmental Office

McKenzie, James
McKenzieParis, McKenzieParis

Menkedick, John
BATTELLE

Mylleville, Bailey
Great Lakes United, Great Lakes United

Nameth, Susan
Environment Canada, Environment Canada

Phenicie, Dale
Council of Great Lakes Industries, CGLI

Shariff, Fatima
McKenzieParis, McKenzieParis

Simon, Robert
Chlorine Chemistry Council, Chlorine Chemistry Council

Smith, Jim
Environment Canada, Environment Canada

Smith, Ted
U.S. EPA – GLNPO, U.S. EPA

Strader, Evelyn
Council of Great Lakes Industries, Council of Great Lakes Industries

Swackhammer, Deb
University of Minnesota, University of Minnesota

Tseng, Tom
Environment Canada, ENVIRONMENT CANADA

Venkatesh, S.
Environment Canada, Environment Canada

Vincent, Jennifer
Environment Canada – OR, EC-OR

Waffle, Alan
Environment Canada, Environment Canada

Wardlaw, Craig
Headwater Environmental Services , Headwater Environmental Services

Woods, Kit
Corporation of the City of Windsor, Corporation of the City of Windsor

Yang, Karen
Environment Canada, Environment Canada

Yee, Jillaine
Environment Canada, Environment Canada

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.