Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholder Forum

Summary Report of Proceedings

February 26, 2002
Cleary International Centre
Windsor, Ontario

Welcome  

James McKenzie, the meeting’s facilitator, welcomed all participants. Danny Epstein, Regional Director of Environment Canada, described the theme for the meeting as the vision forward since the Strategy is approaching its five-year mark. Danny also welcomed all new participants at the Integration Group, and extended a special welcome to Dean Jacobs of Walpole Island First Nation, Director of the Environment. Gary Gulezian, Director of the Great Lakes National Programs Office, welcomed participants and thanked them for attending. 

Government/Stakeholder Activity Updates 

Danny Epstein announced that the final draft of the progress report was ready. He introduced Madhu Malhotra, who will assist Environment Canada and the GLBTS with communications. She was previously involved with RAPs, LaMPs, and the GLBTS in its early years. He also introduced Joe Santarcangelo who will also be assisting with communications. 

Gary Gulezian announced that E. Marie Philips has been the acting U.S. co-chair of the GLBTS for the past several months, and praised her for her work. He further noted that Ted Smith has assumed the position of U.S. co-chair of the GLBTS. Danny Epstein thanked E. Marie for all of the stability and consistency she brought to the transition following Rita Cestaric’s departure. Danny and Gary then presented E. Marie with a token of appreciation on behalf of the GLBTS participants. 

Danny Epstein announced that a meeting between the GLBTS and LaMP Program managers was convened to discuss how the programs could create synergies. Danny described that the Binational Executive Committee approved strategies for emphasis by both the Canadian and U.S. LaMPs and the GLBTS substance workgroups. They include: 

Evelyn Strader, of CLGI, announced that CGLI has prepared a newsletter containing joint messages of the GLBTS and CGLI

Samantha Kemp-Welch, Environment Canada, announced that Pollution Probe, in conjunction with Coastal Zone Canada and the United Nations University, will host a conference titled “Managing Shared Waters” from June 23rd to 28th in Hamilton, Ontario. The conference will discuss the capacity for water management with the Great Lakes as the focus. There will be a session on the GLBTS. A resource kit featuring a best practices kit will be provided. Submissions for topics on products, services, tools and technology will be open until March 15th. For additional details, Samantha may be contacted at Samantha.kempwelch@ec.gc.ca or at (416) 739-4590. Details are also available at www.pollutionprobe.org Exit disclaimer. Danny Epstein added that Environment Canada would cover the conference admission for five Canadian participants. Alan Waffle (alan.waffle@ec.gc.ca) may be contacted for details.

Sector Subgroup Report on Findings, and Discussion

E. Marie Phillips, USEPA, began the Sector Subgroup (SSG) Initiative presentation by thanking all of the members of the SSG for their hard work and dedication. She described that the SSG narrowed an original list of sectors to those where multiple substances could be identified. The process utilized decision tree criteria. The six short listed sectors included:

E. Marie then noted that members of the SSG would present the findings of the work that has been ongoing for approximately the past six months. She described the questions the group relied on to structure each sector teleconference:

Automobile and Related Sector
Margaret Wooster, GLU, presented the findings of the Automobile and Related Manufacturing Sector. She described that the conversation of the SSG did not focus on emissions; rather, the conversation focused on product use and disposal, and the potential to impact suppliers or downstream users. Most of the conversation focused on mercury removal and long-term removal from commerce. She noted that Greg Dana, Auto Alliance, estimated that all mercury switches would be voluntarily removed from vehicles by the summer of 2002, and that there are new mercury applications in automobiles. Discussion also focused on product stewardship, and that there was a great deal of variation in definition of stewardship among the SSG members.

The SSG discussed auto dismantlers and recyclers, and the reuse and disposal of materials, including PVC, at the end of life. There was discussion of the potential links between the combustion of PVC and dioxin. The SSG also discussed the national versus regional focus of automobile production, and discussed the tiers of suppliers to the auto sector. The group also discussed Level Two substances of concern, which include cadmium. Margaret noted a difference of opinion among SSG members regarding the inclusion of Level Two substances. There was no consensus or resolution on potential sector based action.

Following Margaret’s presentation, Frank Borrelli, Vinyl Institute, offered to provide copies of studies on auto shredder waste into the combustors.

Secondary Copper Smelting
John Menkedick, Battelle, described that this sector was included on the short list because little was known about it. He described that there are at most 2 smelters operating in North America. He suggested that future questions should explore the potential shifting of the processes to another sector or areas where copper might be recycled. The Canadian Base Metal Sector Inventory and the U.S. Dioxin Inventory 2000 may provide this information. John noted that, to date, metal sectors emissions have not been prioritized by the SSG.

Government Facilities
Tim Brown, Delta Institute, described that the definition of this sector was the most critical element of the discussion. He also noted that superfund sites are not being considered. He presented a draft table dividing the type of facilities into federal, state and local categories. Several opportunities generated interest from the SSG. These included facilities containing PCB equipment, Department of Defense mercury stockpiles, environmentally preferable purchasing, and state and local programs that could be leveraged. Tim noted that the next step is to clarify the work currently being undertaken by the PCB workgroup. He also noted that there is a need to clarify the focus of the sector for future discussions. He concluded by noting that he had offered to look into public sector EMS plans.

Municipal Waste Combustion
Dale Phenicie, CGLI, described that there are two sizes of MWCs: large (processing greater than 250 tons of waste per day), which comprise 85% of U.S. capacity; and, small (processing 35 to 250 tons of waste per day), which compromise 15% of U.S. capacity. He explained that emission data is still being received and analyzed, but that it appears that emissions are well below the new MACT standard emission level. He also added that more data is required to determine the potential for mercury and dioxin in combustion ash.

Dale described that the sector is likely not a good candidate. He also described that there was some interest by some SSG members in broadening the sector definition to focus on other municipal efforts to reduce PCBs in the waste stream, and to reduce PBT in the waste stream, (including procurement policies, product bans, labeling requirements, and innovative approaches to recycling other than curbside programs).

POTWs
Andy Buchsbaum, NWF, began his presentation by describing that Joe Stephan was unable to present as he is currently recovering from illness. Andy recognized Joe’s contribution to and interest in the discussion of this sector. Andy explained that there are larger POTWs, (which nationally organize through the Association of Municipal Sewer Associations (AMSA)), and smaller POTWs in rural areas, (where some are run by local governments and others independent). The SSG identified several of the current efforts of this sector. These include a group of AMSA members working with the EPA to identify mercury reduction opportunities, the establishment of a National Biosolids Partnership to minimize biosolid pollutants, and pollution minimization plans, (which are more common in large POTWs). The SSG identified many potential opportunities with Level 1, 2 and emerging substances, though the group debated the quantities being considered. There are also potential opportunities to leverage and influence upstream dischargers to the POTW, and that the sector represents a significant source of pollutant releases in certain geographical areas. Andy noted an emerging consensus among the SSG that this sector has the potential for great impact on the local level, and that the sector appears to be a willingness to participate.

Electric Utilities
Jim Roewer, USWAG, began his presentation by describing that there are drivers at the national level that could eclipse the efforts of the GLBTS. He also explained that the sector is meeting the goals of the GLBTS workgroup-focused efforts. He described that the SSG spoke discussed long-established demand side programs and the increasing renewable energy developments of the sector. Jim expressed the opinion that the GLBTS would not add significant value beyond national drivers of the Utilities sector.

Jim noted that the SSG conversation focused on efforts to assist with consumer’s energy efficiency and green power choices, including consumer use trees, and promoting renewable energy. The SSG also discussed opportunities for additional incremental reductions and long-term efforts toward virtual elimination, the potential for the linking of communication strategies with the GLBTS, and the production of other outreach materials such as information of what alternative energy choices are available.

Summary
Alan Waffle, Environment Canada, extended his thanks to all of the members of the SSG for their excellent and respectful discussions. He described that the assessment of the sectors varies to some degree among different stakeholders. He suggested that a pilot project might require a “critical mass” of stakeholders, rather than consensus of all.

Alan then presented a ‘straw’ proposal for discussion. It suggested that the SSG continue to consider the POTWs and Government Facilities sectors, drop the Secondary Copper and MWC sectors, and refer the automobile and related manufacturing sector to the workgroups. He also proposed that more stakeholders be recruited for future teleconference discussions.

Facilitated Discussion
James asked the group is they had any comments or questions for the SSG. Sue inquired about the transfer of the processes associated with the Secondary Copper Smelting Sector. Alan explained that it was recognized that the sector no longer exists and that investigation of associated processes have been referred to the workgroups. Dale suggested that the Utilities sector should also be referred back to the workgroups.

Tim suggested that the SSG should discuss what a SSG pilot project would be in terms of form and scope. Gary suggested that the form and shape would emerge once the sector is selected.

Andy commented that the selection and engagement of a sector should not be solely based on its willingness to participate. John Jackson also agreed that a sector should not be eliminated if they are not initially willing to be engaged. Tim commented that Level 1 and 2 substances should be discussed when approaching sectors. He suggested that it is better to present all substances upfront, rather than approach a sector numerous times. Dale cautioned that the GLBTS and the SSG should first define their objectives and actions in regard to Level 2 substances. Andy shared his support of the inclusion of Level 2 substances, but cautioned that a full Level 2 assessment, (similar to the initial level 1 assessments), are not needed as the SSG initiative is meant to be quicker and more agile that other GLBTS processes.

A number of participants expressed their concern about Alan’s summary comments, which they had interpreted as his suggestions to no longer pursue the Utilities sector as a potential pilot project. Gary addressed this comments by suggesting that none of the sectors will be dropped from the GLBTS process, and that follow-up will be pursued in the substance specific workgroups.

Danny summarized the discussion. He suggested that a pragmatic approach be taken to the engagement of sectors. He acknowledged that the SSG has done a lot of work with the sectors and has identified many opportunities to further develop this initiative.

Gary also added a few summary remarks. He suggested that another teleconference call would me necessary to determine the next steps. He also suggested that opportunities for synergies with the GLBTS communication strategy and the sector project should be explored.

Urban/Rural Air Toxics – Setting the Context

Dr. S. Venkatesh, Environment Canada, presented an overview of monitoring and modeling in general and in relation to the Great Lakes. He explained that there are both urban and rural emission sources of toxics, (including Level 1 and 2 substances). There are both area sources, (such as pesticide applications), and point sources, (substance specific). Dr. Venkatesh described that IADN is the network that monitors the substances of concern to the GLBTS. He noted that the ALERT network has influenced the GLBTS, (for example HCH).

Dr. Venkatesh also described the monitoring of substances in the Arctic. By describing that a ban of HCH in China and Russia that led to a reduced arctic air concentration of HCH, Dr. Venkatesh noted that modeling had identified the international movement of substances and the effects that individual countries have on the concentration of substances in the atmosphere.

At previous Integration Group meetings, Dr. Venkatesh made presentations that have included modeling simulations of global toxics movements, including the animation of the movement of toxics from Asia to North America, and the animation of the use and movement of the pesticide Lindane in the Canadian West. He noted that these types of modeling efforts provide researchers with a good amount knowledge of the amount of wet and dry deposition and the correspondence between the wet deposition (rain) and the amount of dry deposition on the land.

Urban Toxics Monitoring in the United States

Todd Nettesheim, USEPA, gave an informational presentation on the U.S. regional modeling programs in New Jersey and Chicago. He described that recent loadings report results indicate that there is a decrease of PBTs at rural master monitoring stations. There appears to be a net movement of PCBs out of the Great Lakes. However, when data from the Chicago monitoring station is included, it then appears that the loading is going into Lake Michigan. Todd described that the wind direction affects the volatilization in and out of the lake. He described that the concentration of PCB (gaseous) in Chicago is 40 – 90% higher when compared to other mater monitoring stations in the Great Lakes.

Todd then explained that a sampling program of sites up and down wind of historically heavily polluted sites, (i.e., PCB containing sites and substances), has been started. He suggested that preliminary results are shoring that these sites are sources of emissions. Further investigations are ongoing.

Urban Toxics Monitoring in Toronto

Dr. Miriam Diamond, of the University of Toronto, gave an informational presentation on Canadian research on Urban Toxics. She noted that her presentation would cover:

Dr. Diamond described that the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) grew to 4 million between 1991 to 1997, and that most of that growth has been low density in outlying areas. This development is resource intensive and had has greatly increased the number of vehicle trips into and out of the city core. She described that there is a correlation between vehicle miles traveled and PAH concentrations. She also noted that other non-point sources, (such as lead, MTBE, PAH, VOCs, and pesticides), are of concern to urban contamination. The consequences of urban development trends are that more vehicle trips, emissions, and more complex mixtures of chemicals lead to increasing effects on human health, and that a simplified and disturbed ecosystems leads to greater chemical mobility, (i.e., run off, etc).

Dr. Diamond, along with student and colleagues, began sampling a rural to urban gradient from Borden to downtown Toronto. They found a higher concentration of many contaminants in the urban locations. To further investigate this trend, they began a program to sample the accumulation of film on urban windows. To do this they collected samples of this film present on building windows. Dr. Diamond explained that the reason this film is of interest is that contaminants volatilize in the air, much like oil on a wall surface in residential kitchens. This air then cools and condenses on surfaces, just like the oily air cools and condenses on kitchen walls after the cooking is complete.

She described that materials that condense on building windows provide an indication of what falls on the grass and ground. More technically, the film is formed by the deposition of gas-phase contaminants and secondary reaction products such as SOAs, (secondary organic aerosols).

The organic film is a combination of wet and dry deposition. A chemical transformation creates a goo-like film. This film was metal deposition was found to occur at a higher rate on dirty windows. A cross section showed that the film is thicker in urban areas, (approx. 25 nm), and contains more organic matter, and higher concentrations of DDT than rural areas, (approx. 6 nm). Dr. Diamond’s research found that there is a higher pesticide ratio in urban areas. She suggested that in rural areas there could be more opportunities for pesticides to be lost from the land when tilling occurs, whereas downtown, with higher metal concentrations, there are fewer opportunities for loss.

She described that her study also examined the movement of alkanes and polar compounds. Plants produce n-alkanes, which have been found to accumulate in urban areas. Polar compounds can be washed off plants, and provide a good indication of how toxicity moves through the environment. They provide a good indicator of contaminant travel distances. Vegetative canopy, (leaves, etc.), intercept wet and dry deposition. It has determined that plants produce an increased quantity of waxy leaf coatings when they are stressed, and hypothesized that wind causes the abrasion of the cuticular leaf surface. So when plants are producing more waxes they attract and hold more toxics in this wax. In an urban area, the mix of wax and contaminants do not have the ability to find their way into the soil, as they would in a rural area. The Don River Watershed, (adjacent to downtown Toronto), is about 49% impervious surface area. Urbanization leads to increased contaminants, and these contaminants are more mobile.

Dr. Diamond that described that there are many outstanding research questions to be addressed as she, her students, and associates continue to investigate urban toxics. She noted some of the questions. They include an investigation of: the magnitude of emissions within urban areas, the sources of emissions, and the effects of the complex mixture of contaminants. She noted that further investigation of this issue is important because of the physical and chemical degradation of the environment, the adverse effects on human health, and also because institutional structure are poorly situated to address these emergent issues.

Questions for Dr. Diamond
Dr. Venkatesh inquired about the impact of wind patterns on the movement of contaminants. Dr. Diamond described that she and other researchers were keeping track of wind direction.

Margaret Wooster asked if findings were meshing with those of IADN, and if there is correlation between the magnitudes of the sources that are found. Dr. Diamond explained that IADN attempts to measure the whole, well-mixed lake, while her research attempts to measure near-shore effects. She suggested that her study adds another piece to the puzzle.

GLBTS Communications Plan

Madhu Malhotra, Environment Canada, provided a progress update on the GLBTS Communication Plan. She described that the plan was a work in progress, and that there were a number of areas where she would like to ask the Integration Group for their input.

Working with a hand out provided to the Integration Group, Madhu reviewed the draft goals and objectives of the strategy. She then described the audience for whom the communication strategy was being developed. Madhu also described three key messages of the strategy:

She then asked the Integration Group for their assistance in generating ideas for the refinement of the communication plan. She invited members to participate in a brainstorming session to identify whom the strategy should aim to communicate to, what should be communicated, and how to achieve these goals. The following suggestions were recorded:

Madhu thanked all Integration Group for their suggestions. She added that further comments and ideas can be e-mailed her at Madhu.malhotra@ec.gc.ca. Madhu added that the Communication Working Group is still open to looking for volunteers to participate on the communications subgroup.

Five Year Mid-Program Workshop

Madhu Malhotra, Environment Canada, provided an update on the event planning process. She described that it will take place on two of the following three days, yet to be determined: May 28, 29 or 30, 2002. She described that the location is also to be determined. She described that the two-day event will recognize the progress of the GLBTS over the past five years and focus on preparation for the next 5 years. The stakeholder Forum will review efforts made to date and an assessment of where to go in the future. An evening recognition dinner will follow. Madhu noted that at the dinner a poster, coaster, mug, and a group photo would be provided to participants. The Integration Group meeting on the following day will feature the reporting of assessments of priority actions over the next five years by break out groups. A revised communication plan will also be presented.

Madhu then noted that she would like the Integration Group to come to an agreement on whether or not to proceed with the event planning. Members of the Integration Group agreed to proceed with event planning. Next, Madhu invited members of the group to make suggestions or comments in regard to the event.

The following suggestions or comments were recorded:

Value-added role of the GLBTS respecting contaminated bottom sediments

David Cowgill, USEPA, presented a review of the findings of the Sediment Priority Action Committed (SEDPAC). Dave described that he was asked to share his experiences with the SEDPAC initiative at this meeting so that the Integration Group might be able to address whether its members are able to contribute something over and above the tracking and reporting initiative currently being undertaken by the GLBTS.

Dave began by noting that SEDPAC’s membership included the Canadian and U.S. Federal Governments, the Ontario Provincial Government and U.S. State Governments. They discussed the problems of sediments: slow progress, an invisible, complex, expensive problem where responsibility is not always clear and there are competing priorities. He described that sediments are problematic as they impact 11 of 14 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) beneficial uses. RAPs have identified them as an obstacle to AOC remediation, and they are linked to fisheries advisories, a threat to commerce, and can lead to increased water treatment costs. Dave identified six categories of obstacles:

  1. Limited Funding and Resources
  2. Regulatory Complexity
  3. Lack of Decision-Making Framework
  4. Limited Corporate Involvement
  5. Insufficient Research & technology Development
  6. Limited Public and Local Support

Next, Dave noted that the role of the International Joint Commission (IJC) role is to compile and disseminate information on the economic and environmental benefits of sediment remediation, and to develop guidance for making decisions regarding the management of contaminated sediments.

Finally, Dave reviewed the recommendations of the of the role of IJC for each of the six categories of obstacles:

  1. Limited Funding and Resources: establish a “swat team, facilitate local clean ups, serve as a clearing house on funding mechanisms, act as advocate, recommend to parties the employ of adequate technical staff.
  2. Regulatory Complexity: utilize a stepwise approach, establish a sediment ombudsman, advocate maximum flexibility of regulatory tools, and recommend modification of existing laws.
  3. Lack of Decision Making Framework: advocate use of step-wise approach within RAP process, advocate development of consistent decision-making framework.
  4. Limited Corporate Involvement: assemble and disseminate economic information to attract corporate interest, encourage Great Lakes industry groups to be more active, approach industries and corporations.
  5. Insufficient Research and Technological Development: recommend development of methods to quantify benefits of remediation, promote reclamation of materials from disposal facilities, sustain adequate funding for research and technology development.
  6. Limited Public and Local Support: champion and celebrate success, research and disseminate agreements between industries and local communities, be vocal advocates for sediments issues basin-wide, multimedia sharing of successes, convener public meeting, encourage cooperative multi-stakeholder decision making process. 

Facilitated Discussion

Following Dave’s presentation, James facilitated discussion by posing the question “Might this group be able to contribute something over and above the tracking and reporting initiative currently being undertaking by the GLBTS?” He asked the group to reflect back on the proposed options, and consider if there is anything a participant’s organization might contribute or do, through the GLBTS, to accomplish the goal of removing obstacles to sediment remediation

Tim asked what effect the Bush Administration’s proposal to reduce Superfund might have on sediment remediation. Gary suggested that there is a new push to have sediments considered to be a public works projects.

John suggested that the GLBTS could provide means of quantification to promote an understanding of the significance of any given volume removed. He suggested that the ability to assess progress against an indicator is critical to the effectiveness of ENGO lobbying. Gary acknowledged that this data would be beneficial. Dave added that an extensive field survey is a “Catch 22”, informational but also very expensive and uses money that could be spent on actual remediation. John then inquired about a Canadian estimation of such an undertaking. Danny described that a process before the 1994/5 COA identified and prepared a list of sediment areas inside and outside AOCs. Andy added that ENGOs would like to avoid becoming involved in the Superfund process and he expressed the opinion that communities would still like to believe in the polluter must pay principle. Margaret added that GLU is currently involved in many local clean up attempts.

Margaret asked Dave about the EPA’s funding for sediment projects available through the GLNPO office. He described that, in general terms, the funding provides technical, financial, and field support to actively remove sediments. Margaret suggested that it would be helpful to the Integration Group if they could learn about the innovative work being done by these grant recipients. Dave pointed out that this information in available on the GLNPO website.

Margaret described that GLU is currently involved in lobbying for contaminated sediment clean up, and that one problem they face is the trade-off between determining the pollutant effects of long-range air transport and sediments. She inquired if IADN and/or other monitoring programs could have a clear message on the contribution to the watershed of LRT. She explained that his could help make a stronger political message and could help point the finger out of Basin, in terms of clean up, if need be. Gary described that the Lake Michigan mass balance study was designed to look at lake level movements in and out of all sources of deposition. Results have shown that they are all about even and that each needs to be cleaned up to reach the ultimate goals.

Dale shared that he recently met with an Industry group in Orlando and spoke to them about the GLBTS process. He described that they were very receptive and interested in learning about the structure and the process. He described that the group had many innovative process that they would like to attempt including turning a sediment area into an artificial wetland.

Tim described that the Delta Institute has working in Gary, Indiana, with the University of Illinois, where U.S. Steel is going to be dredging, to examine the economic and development opportunities. He asked Dave if someone from the EPA in the Northeast and Midwest might attend to speak on economic development projects. Dave recalled that there had been some studies done in this area and would get back to Tim.

Dean shared that the Walpole Island First Nations has developed guidelines for proponents, which have been helpful for First Nations while working out a new protocol with Dow Chemicals to address historic contamination. He suggested that these guidelines might provide a model for other First Nations and Tribes.

Margaret described that GLU is working on a remediation project in Buffalo, and they are working to fundraise matching dollars. She asked if a space could be made in the GLBTS to help us work on this project. She suggested that not-for-profits can act as lead agencies on the matching funding.

Long Range Transport Workshop Status

Todd Nettesheim of the USEPA provided an update on the planning of the upcoming LRT workshop. Date and location are to be announced

Todd described that some of the objective of the workshop are to:

Next, Todd described the scope of the workshop. It will focus on substances most susceptible to LRT. It will attempt to have a mixed focus on both research questions and how those questions cold translate into policy applications. Organizers are also contemplating having parallel components of the workshops, one where experts could meet and the other where interested public could speak to the experts. Todd hoped to have an agenda and draft agenda prepared by the May mid-program event.

Conclusion

Gary Gulezian and Danny Epstein closed the meeting. The date and location of the next Integration Group is to be announced.

Attendees

Gary Gulezian
USEPA GLNPO

Danny Epstein
Environment Canada

Madhu Malhotra
Environment Canada

Alan Waffle
Environment Canada

E. Marie Phillips
USEPA GLNPO

Ted Smith
USEPA GLNPO

Sue Brauer
USEPA Region 5 WPTD

Keith Hanson
Minnesota Power

Elizabeth Galarneau
Environment Canada

Karen Yang
Environment Canada

Jennifer Vincent
Environment Canada

S. Venkatesh
Environment Canada

Todd Nettesheim
USEPA GLNPO

Dave Cowgill
USEPA Region 5

Anthony Kizlauskas
USEPA GLNPO

John Menkedick
Battelle

Dan Hopkins
USEPA GLNPO

Miriam Diamond
University of Toronto

Samantha Kemp–Welch
Environment. Canada

Andy Buchsbaum
NWF

Shawn Morton
OEC, Ontario Region

John Jackson
GLU

Bailey Mylleville
GLU

Margaret Wooster
GLU

Timothy Brown
Delta Institute

Dean Jacobs
Walpole Island First Nations

Joe Santarcangelo
Environment Canada

Frank Borrelli
Vinyl Institute

Greg Dana
Auto Alliance

Keith Christman
CCC

Dale Phenicie
CGLI

Evelyn Strader
CGLI

Jim Roewer
USWAG

Jim Roewer
USWAG

Amy Thomas
Battelle

James McKenzie
McKenzieParis

Megan McGarrity
McKenzieParis

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.