Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholders Forum - Windsor, Canada

May 14, 2003
North American Toxics – One Continent, No Borders

Welcome and Introductions

Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency, welcomed participants to the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Stakeholder Forum. He apologized for any inconveniences arising as a consequence of changing venues from Toronto to Windsor given Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) concerns. Gary noted that the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) is evolving and gaining stability as each Workgroup nears the completion of its respective challenges and looks toward embracing new challenges. He also noted the need for the GLBTS to examine its role in dealing with new and emerging toxic substances of concern. Finally, Gary announced reports on sediment (in connection with work relating to the U.S. Great Lakes Legacy Act), and long-range transport, will become available to GLBTS and other organizations shortly. The sharing of these reports exemplifies the benefits of information sharing between those who share common concerns and goals.

Danny Epstein, Regional Director, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada, welcomed and thanked GLBTS participants for attending, and announced that members of the Sound Management of Chemicals (SMOC) Workgroup were also in attendance. He noted that the meeting represented the first occasion of a GLBTS cross dialogue with another organization. This initiative compliments the Forum’s theme: “One Continent, No Borders,” which was chosen by the GLBTS in an effort to promote and encourage dialogue and discussion between the SMOC and the GLBTS-. Danny encouraged information sharing between the two processes and expressed his hope that the meeting would facilitate constructive discussion.

Attendees:

Last Name First Name Organization
Abel Tom Chlorine Chemistry Council
Ailor David American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
Alvarado-Splinter Leonor Canadian Institute of Child Health
Bailey Bob Bailey Associates
Bender Tonya Environment Canada
Blumenthal Michael Rubber Manufacturers Association
Brauer Sue Rodenbeck USEPA, Region 5, WPTD
Brown Timothy Delta Institute
Cain Alexis USEPA Region 5
Cantrill Jim Lake Superior Binational Program
Case Charles (Randy) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Castro Jose INE
Chanon Keith USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs
Cheema Daljit Enersource Hydro Mississauga
Collins James Environment Canada
Cowgill David USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Crouch Jim Hearth Patio and Barbecue Association
De Ken Environment Canada
Dove Alice Environment Canada
Dungan Art The Chlorine Institute
Ellison Rose USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Epstein Danny Environment Canada
Espinosa Araceli Benemerita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla
Gillies Bruce Environment Canada
Gulezian Gary USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Hall John Hall Environmental
Harris Reed TetraTech
Hogg Darryl Environment Canada, Contractor
Hopkins Dan USEPA, Region 5
Houston Jim International Joint Commission
Hung Hayley Environment Canada
Inskip Mike Health Canada, Bureau of Environmental Health Science

 
Jackson John Great Lakes United,
Citizens’ Network on Waste Management
Jones Allan Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee (C4)
Jones Robert National Defense Stockpile Center
Karaway Ron NIDBR
Kent Ross Stelco, Inc.
Khanna Madhu University of Illinois
Kuper George Council of Great Lakes Industries
Larson Shawna ACAT and IEN
Leonard Dennis DetroitEdison
Lewis Jack SUNPRO
Lewis Ray SUNPRO
Lipman Zoe National Wildlife Federation
Lopes Edwina Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Lynch Dennis Defense National Stockpile
Maguire Jim Environment Canada
Marsden John Environment Canada
Martig Tony USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Marvin Chris Environment Canada
McAlear Hugh US Army, Northern Regional Environmental Office
McCleod Tex HPBAC
McKay Donald Environment Canada
McKenzie James McKenzieParis
Menkedick John Battelle
Michajluk Shawn Environment Canada
Nameth Susan Environment Canada
Newman Erin USEPA
Ochoa Gustavo Solórzano CENICA - INE – SEMARNAT
Penn Alan CREE Regional Authority
Phenicie Dale Council of Great Lakes Industries
Phillips E. Marie USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Radcliff Steven Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Risotto Steve Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance
Rosenthal Steven USEPA
Rossi Sandy Environment Canada
Samek Linda Ontario Dental Association
Shariff Fatima McKenzieParis
Sawell Steve Composs
Smith Ted USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office
Stone Mark Naval Institute for Dental and Biomedical Research
Strader Evelyn Council of Great Lakes Industries
Tenorio Jose Conios North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation
Thomas Amy Battelle
Tilman Anna STORM Coalition
Tseng Tom Environment Canada
Venkateswaran G.P. (Venki) Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Waffle Alan Environment Canada
Wardlaw Craig Headwater Environmental Services
Winters Dwain USEPA
Wolnik Chris C2P2
Wong Anita Environment Canada
Wright Doug North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation
Xu Iris University of Windsor
Yang Cindy Environment Canada
Yang Karen Environment Canada

Key Note Address

Mr. Doug Wright, Director of Programs,

North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Doug began his remarks by introducing the concept of information sharing between groups, organizations, and strategies, and explaining how it advance the achievement of common goals. The GLBTS and SMOC processes both address the elimination of toxic substances including mercury, lindane, dioxins and PCBs. Doug emphasized the great potential for organizations and strategies such as the GLBTS and SMOC to work together within the CEC, as well as with other partners, to achieve common goals. This opportunity is being recognized and the Stakeholder Forum marks the commencement of such dialogue and collaboration between groups.

Doug reviewed the CEC continental perspective on environmental issues, which holds that pollutants are not restricted by borders and affect both remote and continental ecosystems. The “One Continent, No Borders” theme of the Stakeholder Forum has been a recurring theme within the CEC, not just for toxic substances, but also for all environmental issues. The role of the CEC, as a side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), is to advance the continental perspective and help the United States, Canada, and Mexico deal with common environmental issues. The SMOC initiative is an example of CEC efforts to bring the three member countries together to deal with the elimination and reduction of toxic substances. The mandate of the CEC includes:

The CEC has spent the last ten years establishing programs and achieving an outstanding track record. Over the next ten years, the CEC hopes to become a partner and collaborate with others in the community who are trying to achieve similar goals. The CEC administers programs concerning, among other things, the improvement of the continental environment for children, environmental health, population management, the sound management of chemicals, substance registry systems, and is in the process identifying linkages within its programs for developing comprehensive objectives and avoiding duplication. On this point, the North American Regional Action Plans (NARAPs) serve as an example of active SMOC programming. Participating in NARAPs has increased the Commission’s outreach to academia, industry, and other stakeholders, in turn leading to increased participation from sector representatives in SMOC initiatives. The CEC, through its joint public advisory role, has also been able to increase the involvement of Aboriginal Peoples in the SMOC Workgroup and has worked actively to orient programs towards their needs and requests. Finally, the CEC encourages transparency by continually reaching out to its constituency and inviting them as well as experts to its workshops.

It is anticipated that collaboration between the GLBTS and SMOC will produce numerous benefits including the minimization of duplicated efforts, opportunities to share inventories, increased GLBTS access to SMOC scientific expertise, and an increased capacity to compare different modeling programs which, in turn, will hopefully result in the development of more robust modeling programs. The invitations extended by the GLBTS and SMOC Workgroup to attend each other’s meetings demonstrate the beginning of cooperative efforts between the two processes. Doug was impressed with the level and quality of interest shown by the GLBTS at the May 13 2003 SMOC meeting. He noted that collaborating would also allow the GLBTS to benefit from other initiatives sponsored by the CEC.

Doug then directed his remarks at the CEC effort to help Mexico improve its capacity to sample toxic substances. It is hoped that creating compatibilities between member countries will facilitate information sharing. The CEC is also seeking opportunities to establish stronger links between itself, the International Joint Commission, and the GLBTS, while continuing to look for and build links with other organizations. It is presently working with the World Bank and other international institutions in efforts to harmonize economic interests with those who share environmental concerns. The CEC has also asked NARAPs and the GLBTS to send representatives to its task groups to ensure that work planning and goals are developed in an integrated manner. The cooperative process has already begun at the CEC mercury task group where GLBTS Mercury Workgroup members are attending task group meetings. It is the hope of the CEC that this trend continues and blossoms.

As the CEC reaches its tenth year anniversary, the Ministers from its member countries are initiating a review of its accomplishments, specifically accomplishments made in the sound management of chemicals. This will help the Commission develop its programming for the next ten years. The CEC also wishes to strengthen the integration of its own programs and prioritize human health security. It has begun to address corporate environmental stewardship, but has yet to define its role and objectives. In that regard, it is open to feedback on and suggestions for initiatives.

Doug concluded his remarks by thanking the GLBTS for the opportunity to speak and noting that this meeting marks the beginning of the process of collaboration. He expressed his desire to ensure that all future programs are implemented in the most effective and efficient ways possible, relying on the cooperation between different groups and organizations.

Overview of the United States Great Lakes Legacy Act and Program

David Cowgill
Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office

The United States Great Lakes Legacy Act was passed and signed by President Bush on November 27, 2002 (Public Law No: 107-303). Previous to the Act, no single program in the United States addressed the problem of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes Basin. While monitoring systems have been in place in Canada, the United States has been active in tracking the cumulative volume of sediment remediation, and between 1997 and 2000 the quantities of sediment remediated increased. Despite such achievements, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has been criticized for not having made more progress in sediment remediation. For that reason, the USEPA has championed the Great Lakes Legacy Act.

To implement the objectives of the Act, some $270 million has been allocated for the five-year fiscal period of 2003 to 2008. While the USEPA 2003 budget had already been allocated by the Office of Management and Budget prior to the passing of the Act, leadership in Washington, including the Great Lakes Congressional Task Force, rallied for monies to be made available in 2003, and were successful in leveraging $15 million (of the $270 million total). It is anticipated that the majority of these monies will be earmarked for sediment clean up; however, it is possible that research initiatives will also funded.

Of the $270 million, approximately $50 million per year is earmarked for projects focusing on site characterization, assessments, monitoring, remediation and pollution prevention. Another $3 million per year is dedicated to technology research, and $1 million will be used annually for public information programs to educate about problems associated with sediment contamination. Funding priority will be given to projects targeting remedial action for contaminated sediments; to projects identified by the Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) that are ready for implementation; to projects promoting innovative approaches, techniques, or technologies providing greater or equivalent environmental benefits at a reduced cost; and, to projects that include remediation efforts commencing no later than one year from the date of receipt of funds. The non-federal cost sharing of all projects must be at least 35% of the total project cost and 100% of operations and management costs. October 2003 has been established as a target period for initiating projects pursuant to the Act. Finally, projects must be consistent with other USEPA programs and, where feasible, it is expected that project proponents will work collaboratively with other federal agencies, states, tribes, industry, non-governmental organisations, and stakeholders.

Comments and Questions

A participant noted that current alternative technologies research shows considerable potential for achieving sediment clean up. Present efforts have been undertaken by the Global Environment Facility in Slovakia to consider technologies for improving remediation of stockpile and contaminated sediments. The participant further suggested allocating monies for the study of how other regions are addressing contaminated sediments and for investigating ways to import those technologies to the Greta Lakes Basin. Dave responded that the language in the Act encourages the use of new and advanced technologies that provide for more effective clean up. Dave also supported the suggestion and added that the USEPA is presently considering technologies applied in other regions.

A participant sought clarification about the reported amounts of remediated sediments that were presented and whether the rate of remediation has slowed. Dave responded that there was an incremental increase, and cautioned that one cannot conclude that remediation has slowed down because different USEPA authorities report only what was done in a particular year. As a consequence, volumes of remediated sediments involving long-term projects are difficult to identify in yearly reports.

A participant suggested that the concept of investing in public awareness has not previously been a funding priority. Dave noted that, typically, funding for public outreach is accounted for in individual projects, and varies in each project. The $1 million allocated for public information programs each year will be in addition to monies previously allocated for public information programs.

North American Toxics – Long Range Transport of Substances

Jim Maguire
Environment Canada, National Water Research Institute

Jim began his remarks with a general overview of chemicals of concern in the Great Lakes Basin, drawing on his work as the Director of the National Water Research Institute (NWRI). The Institute <www.nwri.ca> is Canada’s largest freshwater research establishment, generating scientific knowledge through ecosystem-based research that supports the development of sound government policies and programs, public decision-making, and early identification environmental programs. Moreover, the Institute’s research areas include water quality, effects of contaminants in water systems, atmospherically transported persistent organic pollutants, metals in aquatic ecosystems, and potential impacts of climate change on water quantity and quality. Jim emphasized the importance of the study of chemicals generally and the Institute’s work specifically, noting that the consumption of chemicals requires a dynamic balance addressing benefits and risks while, at the same time, appreciating that absolute safety cannot be guaranteed.

Leading into his remarks concerning the long range transport of substances, Jim commented on the importance of recognizing the impact of alien and exotic species, weather and climate change, and interactions between such stressors and toxic chemicals or other substances of concern on ecosystem change. He further noted that ecosystem-specific properties might also profoundly affect the persistence, fate and effects of toxic chemicals. Some factors influencing the long range transport (LRT) of toxic chemicals include:

Wind patterns remain the principal means by which chemicals are carried to and deposited in the Great Lakes Basin. In that regard, noted Jim, the “grasshopper” effect is a recurring sequence of atmospheric deposition, re-volatization, and aerial transport that can convey chemicals far distances.

The long range transport phenomena affect two principal chemicals in the Great Lakes Basin: persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and mercury. POPs are subject to LRT phenomena as a consequence of their semi-volatile nature, toxicity, and ability to bioaccumulate. Mercury, on the other hand, is affected given that it is a natural element behaving much like a semi-volatile organic compound and exists in sulfide ores, coal, and other fossil fuels. When, for example, equipment containing mercury metal is burnt, gaseous matter is conveyed into the atmosphere, undergoes oxidization, and is subsequently deposited with precipitation. Collectively, the long range transport of POPs and mercury has led to the contamination of numerous aquatic environments throughout Canada. Moreover, concentrations of PCBs, DDT, and other POPs remain high in many aquatic food webs. In that regard, for example, the interim guideline for mercury (22ng HG/g w.w.) was exceeded in almost all fish measured to date in Canada.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) POPs Protocol and the Stockholm Convention on POPs represent initiatives to address POPs regionally and globally. Each initiative includes, on its list of POPs, the following chemicals: pesticides, aldrin/dieldrin, endrin, DDT/DDE, HCH/lindane, chlordane, heptachlor, chlordecone, mirex and toxaphene. The long range transportation of chemicals can be mitigated by implementing monitoring programs that establish trends and ensure the effectiveness of controls; by adding new POPs to the UNECE and Stockholm lists; and, by investing in research for environmental assessments of new POPs. Regarding the latter notion, the NWRI is conducting research on a several newly emerging sources of POPs including:

Jim presented data on increases in concentrations of PBDEs in sediments and in 5-year-old lake trout and herring gulls sampled from Lake Ontario, and drew, as one conclusion, the need for more Canadian data regarding toxicity, persistence, metabolism, transformation, and distribution. In addition, a major concern for the Great Lakes has been the use of BDEs, which have been banned by the European Union. Octa- and Penta-BDEs were also found to cause liver damage in rats. It is also anticipated that concentrations of PBDAs within the natural environment are expected to rise if no intervention measures are taken to reduce their concentrations.

Perfluorinated substances (PFOs/PFOAs) have been detected in Arctic biota, some of which were bioaccumulative. Long range transport resulting from the degassing of alcohols and amides used to treat carpets are the suspected cause and source. PFAs are non-volatile; however, when present in the atmosphere they can be deposited by precipitation. It is hypothesized that volatile derivatives of PFOs and other PFAs enter the atmosphere, are transported, yield acids, and then are degraded and/or deposited. High concentrations of C3-C8 perfluoro-carboxylates were also found in water samples taken from Lake Ontario during mid-summer 2001. Moreover, lake trout from Lake Ontario revealed an increasing trend of PFOs from 1980-2001. Environment Canada and Health Canada are in the process of completing a study to detect the health risk of PFOs. The USEPA recently announced a study looking at the threats posed by PFOs. Other organic compounds that are of concern include medium chain chlorinated paraffins, polychlorinated naphthalenes, and silicones.

NWRI studies have recorded volatile pesticides of concern in the Great Lakes Basin, including pentachlorophenol and other halogenated phenolic compounds, endosulfan, lindane, trifluralin, and dacthal. Other chemicals of concern include endocrine-disrupting substances, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, hydroxy-PCBs, haloacetic acids, ultra-low dose non-persistent pesticides (i.e., sulfonylureas), and replacement antifoulants for tributal tin. Finally, the NWRI sponsored a multi-stakeholder assessment to identify water quality related threats in 2001. Potential threats identified included, among others: waterborne pathogens, algal toxins, pesticides, persistent organic pollutants, mercury, endocrine disrupting substances, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), aquatic acidification, ecosystem effects of genetically modified organisms, municipal wastewater effluents, industrial point source discharge, urban runoff, landfills and waste disposal sites, agricultural and forestry land use impacts, natural sources of trace element contaminants, impacts of dams and diversions, and climate change.

Jim concluded his remarks by encouraging the adoption of environmental sustainability as the principal means by which to strike a balance between the risks and benefits of chemical use.

Questions and Comments

A participant inquired about the manner by which Jim selected substances upon which to base his remarks. He advised that the substances indicated in the presentation were chosen based on regulator need for more data and information regarding those chemicals.

A participant asked if the genesis of new chemicals is exceeding the capacity for identification. Are we able to stay on top of the long-term effects of these chemicals? Jim responded that, yes, we are able to keep up provided sufficient resources and funding are made available.

Reporting on the Strategy

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Workgroup
Co-Chairs: Ken De, Environment Canada and Tony Martig, USEPA

Ken reported that the PCB Workgroup challenge for Canada was a 90% reduction of high-level PCBs (>1% PCB) that once were or currently are in service, and accelerate the destruction of stored high-level PCB wastes which have the potential to enter the Great Lakes Basin. This is consistent with the 1994 Canada-Ontario Agreement. As of March 2003, 86% of high-level PCBs in storage had been destroyed in Ontario. In recent years, (2001-2002), data has shown a slowing rate of destruction given the increasing difficulty associated with eliminating the last of reported PCB use. The Workgroup was able to confirm through its actions over the past year the destruction of 290 tons of PCB wastes, the decommissioning of 160 tons of high-level PCBs, and the elimination of approximately 150 sites previously storing PCBs.

Ken then advised that the Workgroup challenge for the United States was a 90% reduction nationally on high level PCBs (>500 ppm) used in electrical equipment by 2006, and to ensure that all PCBs retired from use were properly managed and disposed of so as to prevent releases to the Great Lakes Basin. Approximately 36% (71,000) of PCB transformers and 10% (141,000) of PCB capacitors were disposed between 1994 and 2000. The Workgroup is presently waiting on 2001 disposal data to provide more accurate information.

The Workgroup has identified the following barriers PCB reduction and is in the process of identifying ways to overcome these constraints:

The PCB Workgroup, in regard to its Reward and Recognition Program introduced in December 2002, is in the process of following up with industry sector representatives. Of the 18 Canadian companies contacted, eight have responded with interest and four have qualified for recognition. The Workgroup will continue to identify additional companies from other sectors that seek to reduce or who already have reduced use of PCBs. The four companies to be recognized at the September Integration Workgroup meeting are Hydro One, EnerSource, Slater Steel and Stelco Inc. Progress has also been made within the Canadian government to amend regulations to include three new PCB regulations in 2003. The Workgroup is developing compliance and workshop strategies to assist in the implement the regulations. Additional information is available at <http://www.ec.gc.ca/wmd-dgd/default.asp?lang=En&n=FDC36D83-1>.

Dioxins and Furans Workgroup

Co-Chairs: Erin White Newman, USEPA, and Anita Wong, Environment Canada

Anita reported that the Workgroup challenge for Canada is a 90% reduction of dioxin and furan use in the Great Lakes Basin by 2000. Thus far, the Workgroup has achieved an 83% reduction or 213 grams TEQ in total releases within Ontario and the Basin. Canada has renewed the commitments set out in the Canada-Ontario Agreement and has set a new date of 2005 to achieve the 90% target.

Anita then advised that the Workgroup challenge for the United States is a 75% reduction by 2006 in an aggregate of air releases nationwide and water releases within the Great Lakes Basin. The U.S. has achieved a 77% or 10,743 grams TEQ reduction in total releases within eight states.

The largest source sector emitters of dioxin in the U.S. have changed from municipal solid waste incinerators (in 1987) to household garbage burning (in 2002). Household garbage burning includes open burning of garbage on homeowner’s property in barrels, woodstoves, open pits, outdoor furnaces, and so on. Additional information can be found at the Workgroup web site at <www.openburning.org>. Current Workgroup initiatives to reduce household burning include education/outreach workshops, and updated dioxin/furan inventories. While all source emitters have shown a significant decline in dioxin emissions since 1987, the Workgroup continues to seek ways to further reduce emissions using the following four-step process:

  1. Gather information.
  2. Analyze current regulations and programs.
  3. Identify options to achieve further reductions.
  4. Implement actions.

This four step process has enabled the Workgroup to develop a decision tree to prioritize issues, establish a priority sector list, monitor existing initiatives, and develop a reduction strategy for burn barrels. Moreover, the Workgroup is planning to address issues concerning limited reduction opportunities as well as means by which to address outstanding sectors (e.g. open burning, boilers, mobile sources). It will also establish a new priority sector list based on updated dioxin/furan release inventories,(which are expected later this year), compile a Great Lakes dioxin/furan release inventory; seek more reduction opportunities through joint efforts with other Workgroups; continue to address information gaps for poorly characterized sources by engaging sectors to share information; and, monitor environmental indicators for dioxins/furans.

Benzo(a)Pyrene / Hexachlorobenzene (B(a)P/HCB) Workgroup

Co-Chairs: Tom Tseng, Environment Canada, and Steve Rosenthal, USEPA

Tom reported that the Workgroup established challenges to reduce releases of HCB and B(a)P resulting from human activities within the Great Lakes Basin by 2006 in the United States. The Workgroup has thus far been successful in achieving this challenge as there has been an approximate 90% reduction in HCB releases nationally from chlorinated solvents and pesticide manufacturing; a 65% reduction in B(a)P releases in the Great Lakes region from coke ovens; and, an over 90% reduction in releases from primary aluminum reduction plants and petroleum refineries. Recent progress in the United States also includes the completion of the wood stove change-out program with Hearth Productions in 12 states. This alone has resulted in a steady decrease of emissions. Discussions continue with the scrap tire sector to reduce fires. Disputed HCB emission levels from utility coal combustion and tire manufacturing have been resolved. Petroleum refineries have been removed from the list of significant B(a)P sources. HCB emissions from several chemical companies and primary aluminum reduction plants B(a)P emissions have been controlled from sources surrounding the Great Lakes Basin. Finally, the USEPA remains committed to eliminating scrap tire sites given their source as a breeding ground for mosquitoes infected with the West Nile Virus.

Tom further reported that the Canadian challenge was set at achieving 90% reductions in releases of HCB and B(a)P resulting from human activities, and that this was consistent with the Canada Ontario Agreement of 2000. To date, Canada has reported a 65% reduction in HCB releases and a 48% reduction in B(a)P releases within the Great Lakes Basin. Though the Canadian challenge has not fully been achieved, a new commitment to seek 90% reduction was established in June 2002. Other recent Canadian accomplishments have also been made in efforts to reduce HCB and B(a)P. Sixty (60)“Burn it Smart” wood stove workshops were conducted in 32 Ontario communities with approximately 1300 people participating in efforts to phase out residential wood combustion. A vehicle emissions inventory was developed for Ontario to help identify opportunities for further reductions. The Canada-Ontario Agreement harmful pollutants annex draft work plan now includes additional reduction efforts. Preliminary estimates of HCB concentrations in pesticides have been provided to the Workgroup. The Iron and Steel Industry has accepted voluntary agreements resulting in B(a)P reductions. New standards of practice codes are being implemented at creosote facilities in effort to reach similar reductions. Chemical production facilities in Ontario have reported very little HCB releases from the pesticide sector and a study is presently being conducted to determine significant traces of HCB levels in some pest control products. Finally, as a means of further reducing HCBs, Canada has implemented new Canada-wide Standard for incinerators that includes municipal, hazardous, sewage sludge and biomedical wastes.

The major sources of B(a)Ps in Canada and the United States are coke ovens, wood preservation, and residential wood combustion. The major sources of HCB releases include chlorinated solvents and pesticide manufacturing, chlorine production, pesticide application, and waste incineration. The Workgroup has faced numerous barriers in achieving further reductions including, the lack of emissions data, missing B(a)P sources as reflected by air quality trend data, the number of source sectors, the challenge of recruiting more Workgroup members, and the initiation of more sector-specific projects. The Workgroup plans on consulting with the pesticide sector, auto manufacturers, and others to refine release estimates. It also plans on meeting with facilities not reporting or with “low confidence” NPRI estimates, and will propose voluntary stack testing. It will continue outreach on residential wood combustion by conducting more “Burn it Smart” workshops in Ontario, and will explore the possibility of holding similar workshops in the United States.

Mercury Work Group

Co-Chairs: Alexis Cain, USEPA, and Robert Krauel, Environment Canada

Bob reported that the Mercury Workgroup challenge for Canada was a 90% reduction in releases in the Great Lakes Basin by 2000. This goal was not achieved by 2000; however, a reduction of 83% was achieved by 2001, and efforts to achieve further reductions remain ongoing. The Workgroup challenge for the United States was a 50% reduction in the use of and air emissions of mercury nation-wide by 2006. To date, an estimated 40% reduction in mercury emissions has been achieved and the use of mercury has decreased by more then 50%.

Workgroup activities continue to be supported by other initiatives to reduce mercury emissions and use, including, among other things, mercury controls on electric utilities through multi-pollutant legislation under US MACTstandards; quicksilver caucus reports on mercury stewardship and water quality standards; a thermostat recycling corporation initiative, (which collected 530 pounds of mercury in 2002, an improvement of 32% from 2001); state mercury legislation regarding thermometers and mercury disposal; the expansion of Ontario’s municipal programs for collecting switches, lamps, and thermostats; and, various UNEP mercury programs. As for the Chlor-alkali Industry, mercury use remains at 30 tons, an 81% reduction since 1995, and a 73% reduction on a capacity-adjusted basis (as 5 of 14 mercury cell plants have closed since 1997). The Mercury Workgroup has also been working with the dental industry and has circulated a draft report based on recommendations made at its previous meeting. The Canadian Dental Association is working to achieve a 95% mercury reduction by 2005 and the Ontario Dental Waste Management working group is finalizing its guidance and educational materials for best management practices programs. This will include amalgam separators. The American Dental Association has launched its dental amalgam initiative proposing best management practices for amalgam waste and offering partnerships with the USEPA. Moreover, Milwaukee is considering regulations on amalgam recycling, and New York has passed laws mandating amalgam recycling.

Other accomplishments include the fact that no mercury switches appeared in any 2003 model cars; the Great Lakes United national web conferences; mercury reduction pilot projects in New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Indiana; and, the Ontario “switch-out” program, which collected over thirty thousand switches from 135 participating recyclers. This program will be expanded to Alberta in June 2003. Other upcoming activities include tracking mercury trends in the environment, dental mercury reporting, and the establishing of a dental mercury workgroup in northeast Illinois and southeast Wisconsin.

Integration Workgroup

Co-Chairs: Gary Gulezian, USEPA, and Danny Epstein, EC
Presented by Alan Waffle

Alan reported that the role of the Integration Workgroup is to suggest strategic pathways forward for the GLBTS and to work to ensure that the Strategy remains focused on achieving reductions of toxic substances. Some of the Workgroup’s areas of focus include cross-cutting policy issues, broad strategic discussions, facilitating communication, monitoring progress, assessing the effectiveness of GLBTS implementation, dealing with technical issues common to all the Substance Workgroups, and serving as a clearinghouse for GLBTS information. Its future challenges include; developing a “setting aside” process for current Level I substances; considering a process for adding new Level I chemicals to the GLBTS; organizing and delivering a long-range transport workshop in the fall of 2003; and developing working synergies with the CEC’s Sound Management of Chemicals Workgroup.

Questions and Comments (of all Workgroups)

A participant asked for clarification as to why Canadian GLBTS challenges are not linked to national reduction. Tom Tseng explained that in Canada, the Canada –Ontario Agreement (COA) existed prior to the inception of GLBTS. The GLBTS was able to adopt the COA targets. Presently, although the GLBTS does not commit Canada to achieving a 90% reduction nationally, the Canadian government has adopted guidelines for the national elimination of B(a)P, HCB and other toxic substances. The U.S. did not however have a similar national strategy in place in 1994 and therefore had to develop its own targets.

A participant sought clarification on the differences between Canada and the United States with respect to wood stove burning. Tom Tseng answered that both the U.S. and Canadian offered “change out” programs, however, Canada has also implemented efforts to educate the public by convening regional workshops. The effectiveness of the later strategy is being monitored and results will be presented at future Workgroup sessions.

A participant asked for the sources of reported data as well as reasons for why GLBTS members are not required to report inventories. Workgroup Chairs each responded that the GLBTS is a voluntary organization and depends on the cooperation of stakeholders and participating sectors for data. The GLBTS also depends on data collected by the state and federal governments though programs such as the NPRI and TRI.

Plenary Closing

Danny Epstein offered concluding remarks and thanked participants for attending the GLBTS Stakeholder Forum. He reiterated and emphasized the potential for collaboration between SMOC and the GLBTS, as well as other linkages between the two groups. He thanked Doug Wright for the keynote address. Over the past few years, the GLBTS has developed a capacity to work with stakeholders and partners from industry organizations, academia, NGOs and other Great Lakes programs. The GLBTS encourages CEC and SMOC to tap into these resources and partner with the GLBTS on its initiative. Danny also thanked Dave Cowgill for his presentation on the Great Lakes Legacy Act. It was encouraging to learn that federal funds were being put toward sediment clean up in the Great Lakes Basin. Canada’s Sustainability Fund, a fund similar to the Legacy Act, will benefit from the experience of the Legacy Act. Finally, Danny thanked Jim Maguire for his presentation on the long-range transport of substances, noting that it provided an excellent update on the status of various research endeavors.

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.