Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholders Forum - Windsor, Ontario

May 29, 2002
Windsor, Ontario
Summary Report of the Proceedings

Welcome and Introductions 

Danny Epstein, Regional Director of Environmental Protection Branch - Ontario Region, welcomed all participants to this Windsor meeting to mark the mid-point of a 10-year strategy to virtually eliminate persistent toxic substances from the Great Lakes Basin. Danny described that the goal of this meeting was to take stock of the Strategy’s status and thus review challenges for 2006. He expressed the importance of collectively understanding the challenges and the extent to which the current Strategy is working, and then determining what changes if any need to be made. Danny remarked on the progress that has been made over the past five years and that the government alone could not have achieved the reduction levels achieved by the Strategy. He encouraged the continued participation from all stakeholders. On a personal note, Danny added on a personal note, that he looked forward to continuing to work with all stakeholders in the future.

Gary Gulezian, Director of the Great Lakes National Programs Office of the USEPA, added words of welcome to all participants, and thanked everyone for attending the Forum. Gary noted  that the efforts of all participants come together to make a difference in the health of the Great Lakes. Gary informed the group that the 2001 Progress Report was being circulated.

James McKenzie, the meeting facilitator, reviewed the day’s agenda and introduced the first panel -- specific Substance Workgroup speakers. 

The PCB Challenge

Ken De, of Environment Canada, reviewed the Canadian and U.S PCB challenges:

Ken reported on the progress of both from countries in reducing inventories of high-level PCBs nationally and throughout the Great Lakes Basin. He described that in Ontario alone approximately 80% of the high-level PCBs have been destroyed, and several federal and private sites are now PCB-free in Ontario, with no PCB in storage or in use.

The workgroup is continuing their Outreach Program through mailing commitment letters to many sectors in order to increase awareness.

In the US, the current estimate of reductions in PCB transformers between 1994 and 2000 is approximately 33%. 

Ken explained that this number may be an underestimate, and that they are now in the process of reviewing the total number of registered PCB transformers.

He highlighted some of the success stories within industrial sectors:

Ken informed the participants about the targeted amendments to federal PCB regulations, noting that the updates would be available online at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/wmd-dgd/default.asp?lang=En&n=FDC36D83-1 Exit disclaimer. He also noted that Environment Canada, in partnership with USEPA conducted an e-mail survey on the current the BNS-PCB website.

He emphasized the need for the workgroup to implement a GLBTS communication strategy, in order to encourage participation of new stakeholders. Finally, he described the group’s priority and upcoming actions:

The Dioxin and Furan Challenge

Anita Wong, of Environment Canada, explained that Nan Gowda, USEPA, will no longer be the co-chair of the dioxins/furans workgroup with GLBTS, and thanked him for his efforts over the past 3 years. Erin White, USEPA will now be the co-chair.  Anita identified the challenge goals as follows:

Anita reported on the reductions achieved. Canada has achieved approximately a 79% reduction on total releases. The US has achieved approximately a 77% reduction on total releases

She explained that 95% of the human exposure to dioxins/furans comes from food supply, with large contributions from intake of dairy products, and that very little actually comes from inhalation.

She described that medical waste incineration was the highest source of dioxin air release in Ontario, followed by iron sintering activities (based on 1990 – 2000 data). Anita  also noted that the reduction initiatives such as the Canada-Wide Standards on waste incinerators and the possible phase out of hospital incinerators in Ontario would lead to reductions of dioxins from current sources. However, by the year 2005, burn barrels will become the highest source of dioxins in Canada. Currently, waste incineration is also a major source of dioxins in the US environment: however, by 2004, burn barrels will also be the highest source of dioxins in the US.

Anita identified some of the potential barriers to the achievement of the challenge:

Anita indicated that the workgroup will continue to:

The B(a)P/HCB Challenge

Tom Tseng, of Environment Canada provided the B(a)P/HCB update. He reviewed the two national challenges:

Tom reported significant reductions on both sides of the border. Canada has achieved approximately a 65% HCB and 45% B(a)P reductions in the Great Lakes. The US has achieved approximately a 90% reduction in HCB emissions nationally from chlorinated solvent and pesticide manufacturing, and a 65% B(a)P emission reduction from coke ovens in the Great Lakes Basin.

Tom reported on the recent Canadian accomplishments:

Tom reported the US accomplishments:

Tom indicated that the pesticides estimation remains to be the main challenge, in addition to filling emission data gaps from major source sectors. Work continues with pesticides producers and other sectors to refine release estimates, meet with facilities that are currently not reporting, and initiate new pollution prevention projects (e.g., scrap tires). Having recognized the assistance provided by stakeholders, he urged the industry partners for greater participation in their initiatives. Tom also noted that the B(a)P emission reductions lag behind those for HCB because, as a product of incomplete combustion, it is emitted from many sources which aren’t always amenable to further reduction efforts.

Tom expressed an interest in continuing to work on the stack-testing program, the Burn Barrel project, and on scrap tire issues. He urged increased participation from CGLI and other partners in achieving their reduction goals.

Tex McLeod inquired about the difference in the graphics presented today and the Progress Report 2001. Tom explained that the Progress Report was based on November 2001 data/information, and that the presentation incorporates the new NPRI submissions.  Steve Rosenthal took a moment to explain pesticide volatility is probably 100% and not the 8.3% that is reported in EPA’s inventory and that HCB (an unintended  by-product of pesticide manufacturing) emissions are directly related to its volatility.

The Mercury Challenge

Alexis Cain, of U.S. EPA provided an update on the Mercury Challenge.  He began by reviewing both challenges. The Canadian challenge is to achieve a 90% reduction in the release and use of mercury in the Great Lakes by 2000. The US challenge is to achieve a 50% reduction in use and air emissions of mercury (nationwide) by 2006.

Alexis updated the group on the progress towards meeting these challenges. He reported that in Canada mercury releases have been reduced by 78% from the1988 baseline, noting that the significant reductions in mercury releases in the Ontario and the US since 1990s was due to controls on incineration and decreases in medical and municipal wastes. And, in the US reductions in mercury emissions have been greater than 40% and greater than 50% reductions in use.

Alexis highlighted some of the accomplishments of the group:

Looking ahead to 2006, Alexis noted that the challenges are likely to be achieved, with Regulations/Standards in place for major source sectors such as incinerators and power plants, etc. Most of mercury uses are anticipated to be eliminated or waned, with the probability of alternative energy-efficiency lighting options. Most remaining stocks of mercury devices will be in autos, appliances, and industrial machinery.  Alexis described that the workgroup will continue to:

Andy Buchsbaum asked about the residual risk program and then inquired about a MACT standard for utility boilers, and about the estimated reductions anticipated under the Clear Skies initiative. Alexis described in response to the first question, that the clean air act requires development of a “residual risk” standard within eight years of development of a control technology standard, for every source sector that is required to have a MACT standard.  He also explained that the residual risk standards have not been developed yet, but may result in additional reductions when they are developed.   In response to the second question, he  emphasized that the clear skies initiative is only a proposal, but that it could cap emissions at 70% lower than current levels. The amount of reduction that MACT will achieve is uncertain.

Ken De inquired about the status of mercury stockpiles in warehouses. Alexis responded by stating that the Department of Defense and Energy is developing an Environmental Impact Statement and taking public comment on the various options for dealing with government mercury stockpiles.

The Alkyl-Lead Challenge

Ted Smith, of USEPA, presented the Alkyl-lead update on behalf of Anthony Kizlauskas, who was unable to attend the meeting. Ted began by reviewing US and Canadian challenges.

Ted reported that the US challenge had been achieved and documented in a report issued in June 2000, and that the Canadian challenge had also been achieved with a 98% reduction from 1988 to 1997 and documented in a report issued in January 1999.

Ted reviewed the remaining permitted uses of alkyl-lead in aviation gasoline and automobile racing gasoline with efforts in progress to phase out lead in both these sectors. Barriers to their phase out include safety issues with aviation gasoline related with the poor performing alternatives that could be life threatening. The US National PBT Program is currently in dialogue with the aviation and auto racing sectors, and continued discussions are in progress with the automobile racing organizations in Canada. (In Canada, racing vehicles have been excluded but that exclusion will expire by the end of this year).

Ted noted the continued efforts from FAA and Coordinating Research Council in working towards lead-free substitutes to the high-octane aviation gasoline. NASCAR continues to lead in introducing lead-free racing gasoline. The GLBTS alkyl-lead challenges and reductions have been adopted by USEPA in National PBT Program.  He also noted that in Canada, two reports have been completed in effort to collect additional information on aviation sources, use and releases:

The Level I Pesticides and Octachlorostyrene Challenge

Ted Smith, of USEPA, also presented the report on the Pesticide and OCS challenge. He began by reviewing the U.S. and Canadian challenges:

Ted reported that all uses of Level 1 pesticides have been cancelled, and production facilities have also been closed. Existing stocks of pesticides, along with the presence of contaminated sites, and the continued usage of Level 1 pesticides in other parts of the world, remain as potential barriers to pesticide elimination. US and Canadian federal governments are continuing their efforts to eliminate the use of Level 1 pesticides worldwide. Ted described that there are on-going efforts in place, such as the collection of unused stockpiles and the remediation of Level 1 pesticide contaminated sites, to eliminate these substances.

Ted indicated described that the OCS concentrations in the environment have decreased sharply since the 1960s. OCS has been virtually eliminated from current releases, and that the past releases from the chemical production have been reduced or eliminated by improved production methods. Achievements have been documented in progress reports (US – December 2000, Canada – June 2000). There are on going efforts in place to explore the link between OCS production that may lead to HCB and dioxin production. Finally, Ted added that the path towards the elimination approach has led to advanced scientific knowledge on the presence of OCS in the environment and its production.

Industry and ENGO Presentations

GLBTS Process Allowing Imaginative Solutions by Industry

Robert Stempel, Chairman of The Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI), and with Energy Conversion Devices Inc., made a presentation on the involvement of industry in the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy. He expressed his gratitude for being invited to join the celebration of the fifth anniversary of the Strategy. Robert indicated that industry believed that there is a lot to celebrate, as the Strategy has been ground breaking in working towards the virtual elimination of discharge of bio-accumulating toxic substances. He noted that despite great progress made, the work is not complete and there is still more to do.

Robert highlighted the three aspects of the Strategy approach which allowed industry to develop creative solutions:

  1. The Strategy is a collaborative multi-stakeholder process: a unique process with which industry is familiar though not always comfortable, but would like to continue to be involved. CGLI, along with U.S. Council for International Business and the USEPA, sponsored two multi stakeholder workshops, which produced both principles and procedural guidelines for effective international public policy dialogues, known as the ‘Boulder Principles’.
  2. The Strategy has targets and timetables: An important aspect as the industry is accustomed to setting targets and working towards achieving those targets. The Strategy targets give industry a needed focus with realistic end points that industry can work towards.
  3. The process is voluntary. How targets are met is voluntary, noting that industry is aware that the command and control approaches could be revisited if they do not perform in this new context.

Robert expressed the excitement experienced by all parties involved in this unique strategy. He also shared his observation that the Strategy is a fragile process, one that could be negatively affected should any stakeholder withdraw form the process.

Robert also described that important progress on the Strategy had occurred due to the contribution of three factors:

  1. A focus on updating our knowledge of sources through workgroup activity, and working towards identifying sources, to devote time and resources on real issues and solutions.
  2. Representatives from whole segments of our economic society have come together to use the Strategy context to modify their processes. He provided examples from the chlor-alkali  industry, the battery industry, and auto manufacturing.
  3. Building of mutual respect among stakeholders and the government and the formation of relationships between industry, governments and the environmental community.

Robert concluded his presentation by thanking all participants for their efforts, and by acknowledging that both governments took a risk in pursuing the Strategy. He suggested that even when GLBTS goals are met, stakeholders should move on to other priorities. Finally, he also suggested that other forums are better suited to addressing ecosystem stressors such as exotic species and land use issues. He recommended that the Strategy should communicate its successes. Looking ahead, Robert expressed the need to take the experience; trust and knowledge gained through the GLBTS process and apply it to new priorities in the Great Lakes Basin.

State of Michigan Mercury Reduction Program

Andy Buchsbaum, National Wildlife Fund (NWF), gave an informational presentation entitled Phasing Out Mercury Pollution in Michigan. Andy described that this NWF proposal offers Michigan a means of pursuing a mercury phaseout plan to satisfy its TMDL requirements.  Andy specifically noted that the scenarios, costs and analysis presented are based on data amassed by NWF and not of the State.

Andy began reviewed many of the neurotoxic effects of mercury. He described the fish advisories on Michigan’s inland lakes as a reminder of the importance of the need to eliminate mercury, noting that atmospheric deposition is the primary source of mercury in the State. Substantial mercury reductions have take taken place in Michigan: 50% reductions from 1996 (Total Michigan Mercury Emissions) in 4 years, but many difficult areas still remain a challenge in achieving reduction goals.

Andy described that each state is required under the Clean Water Act’s Total Daily Maximum Loads (TDMLs) to clean up these waterways. Michigan is required to prepare mercury TMDLs, addressing all sources of mercury, for every one of its inland lakes and for portions of the Great Lakes. He acknowledged that the financial costs associated with remediating these waterways are high, and described that a TMDL process is expensive and extensive.  For example, it would take Ohio 15 years to clean up the waterway with a cost of $25 million.

Andy advised that the plan developed by NWF provides an option to the State to satisfy their legal requirements under the Clean Water Act TDMLs for mercury.

Elements of the proposed phase out plan:

  1. Cut mercury air emissions by 90% by 2010, and virtually eliminate air emissions by 2020. Source targets for major reductions: Coal-fired power plants, Incinerators, Steel, Industrial and commercial boilers, etc.
  2. Require Great Lakes Basin water dischargers to reduce their mercury-containing effluents so that they meet actual water quality based effluent limitations for mercury within five years. He noted an exception for municipal wastewater treatment plants: they should meet variance limit and phase our mercury sources to sewers.
  3. Identify and clean up 90% of mercury hot spots (area of sediment or soil) that contribute high levels of mercury runoff by 2010 and 100% by 2020.

Andy provided a preliminary sector-by-sector analysis of current mercury emissions with projected reduction targets, and the potential reduction methods and costs of achieving reduced emissions:

Andy also noted that mercury emission from waste incineration reductions has been achieved.

A phase out in mercury paint, state authorized hazardous waste recycling program, hospital removal of mercury and new MACT standards for medical incineration have all contributed to this reduction. Mercury from medical waste that is currently not incinerated and suggested that this inventory is likely not conducted or reported accurately.

Andy indicated that discussions with Michigan DEQ and U.S. EPA are ongoing, and that study will be distributed in June 2002 for peer review.

Tom Tseng asked about the prospect of the TMDL being implemented, if linking rain water to emission control was feasible, and if this proposal is adopted, how many other states are  anticipated to adopt this approach. Andy replied that the EPA document that Tom had mentioned was a guidance document, not a rule. He mentioned that the EPA is considering the option of an MOU so that the proposal can be considered. He also addressed the link between air emissions and deposition; suggesting that they were difficult links to make for a specific body of water, but less difficult for a whole state, as modeling has shown that a large amount of mercury falls within a small distance.

Dennis Leonard asked if eliminating mercury in Michigan would also eliminate fish advisories. Andy expressed the opinion that it would be difficult to see immediate results in remote areas. Dennis then expressed his opinion that Electric Utilities were being asked to spend a lot of money on mercury reductions when they may or may not lead to the removal of fish advisories. Andy responded by describing that the cost of doing nothing is much higher.

Alexis Cain thanked Andy for proposing an alternative to TMDLs. He described that most states will be regulated under the Clean Air Act, and asked how reasonable it would be to develop reduction for states to meet the TMDLs. Andy described that the Clean Air Act is part of the solution but is not a substitution.

Dale Phenicie asked Andy to clarify the costs and which parties cover the costs in this presentation. Andy explained that he spoke about the TMDL costs in Ohio, he was referring to the state costs of planning phase outs. He then described that the proposal is trying to remain as broad and flexible as possible, without explicitly describing what any state has to do.

The Role of Industry in the Lake Superior Binational Program

Nick Lewis, of Cascades Fine Paper, gave a presentation on the Lake Superior Binational Forum and the ECOS. The Lake Superior Binational Forum was announced in 1991with a mission to protect and maintain the ecosystem. A diversity of partners work together on the program including Ontario and the states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, along with local municipalities. The forum was created to put into action with the mandate to reduce chemicals of concern, namely mercury, dioxins, PCB’s, HCB, OCS, toxaphene and other pesticides. Nick described the environmental successes of the program. He reported that Mercury had been reduced by 60% and a phase out of PCB use in Canadian mills was close to completion.

Nick described the formation of the Environmental Coordinators of Lake Superior (ECOS) group. The group is comprised of all of the pulp and paper companies on the Canadian side of Lake Superior. They have also extended invitations to both Federal and Provincial governments.  He indicated that the group meets on a quarterly basis to provide a form for opinions and recommendations among a diverse range of stakeholders. Their mandate is to discuss voluntary and cooperative actions that would reduce the nine chemicals of concern in Lake Superior. Nick noted that the group has successfully implemented voluntary air emission testing, and updated their PCB inventory. They have also participated in several joint projects between industry and government including:

Nick reviewed the purchasing policy of Cascades Fine Paper–Thunder Bay Inc. Each new chemical is subject to rigorous examination much beyond simply examining the MSDS sheet information, and must be approved before it can be used.  The wastewater discharged from Cascades is tested for the compounds of concern and that they also recycle fluorescent lights.

In summary, Nick noted that these successes are the result of the consensus-based approach the groups have taken, noting that signed agreements are difficult for the group. He stressed the need for governments and industry to find innovative ways of working together on projects. The long-range goal of the ECOS group is to continue to hold meetings with the intention of developing additional projects that help the goals of the Lake Superior Binational Program, LaMP programs and the GLBTS.

A Pannel Presentation:

Indicators: Binational Assessment of the Great Lakes – A Look at SOLEC

Paul Horvatin, USEPA, presented an overview of The State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) indicators in relationship to current ambient monitoring practices and results. SOLEC meetings, hosted by the USEPA and Environment Canada, are held every two years in response to reporting progress towards meeting the goals of the GLWQA, and target mostly managerial audience, e.g. environmental managers and decision makers. Paul described that the conferences assess the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem based on accepted indicators, and provide a forum for communication among stakeholders with exchange of information amongst decision-makers. He then explained that SOLEC is not a regulatory, lake management, or scientific research program. It does not dictate monitoring programs or assess other things apart from toxic substances.

Paul said that 80 indicators had been compiled and determined to be necessary, sufficient, and feasible to characterize the state of the Great Lakes Basin. He noted that of the total 80 indicators, 29 indicators address contaminants and pathogens (of which 15 are PBT indicators). Paul further noted that of the 15 PBT indicators, six have been reported to SOLEC in 2000, and six more will be added for SOLEC 2002. Paul also mentioned that the State of the Great Lakes 2001 report is available online at www.binational.netExit disclaimer and also available on CD. The upcoming SOLEC conference in October 2002 will have Biological Integrity as its theme and will be held in Cleveland. More details can be obtained from visiting SOLEC websites at www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec/Exit disclaimer and www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/

There were some questions about the presentation. Paul Bertram replied. George Cooper asked if there was a significant change to the schedule. Paul explained that the presentation covered the group’s work over the past year.

Ken De asked if Paul had any measurements that would reflect the state of the Great Lakes from 1994 to compare to today. Paul indicated that there were a number of reports and indicators available. Ken then specifically inquired about PBT indicators. Harvey Shear added that indicators going back to 1980’s are available.

Ambient Environmental Monitoring Results:
Ambient Air Monitoring of Great Lakes Toxics: Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN)

Todd Nettesheim, USEPA explained that IADN is a system of monitoring stations created under the Canada-US GLWQA (Annex 15). He reviewed that IADN can monitor the atmospheric deposition of many PBT substances, including PCBs, PAHs, organochlorine pesticides, and metals. Todd further noted that IADN also collects precipitation concentrations and weather data. IADN data has been used to calculate loading estimates into the Great Lakes. IADN was designed with one master station at each of the Great Lakes, supplemented by a number of satellite stations to provide more spatial detail for deposition. The master station data is used to calculate the lake wide loadings.

Next, Todd presented a chart of PCB and HCH loadings to the Basin. He explained that many banned and cancelled substances are showing a declining trend, and approaching equilibrium. He also showed charts of decreasing PCB concentrations at various sites of the Great Lakes. He noted the increased PCB concentrations in urban areas, and described that further research is being pursued to examine the urban effect.  Todd remarked on the need for urban stations in response to emerging contaminants such as Hg, and dioxins, but acknowledged challenges such as limited resources.

National Air Pollution Surveillance Network (NAPS)

Tom Dann, of the Environmental Technology Centre, presented an overview of ambient air monitoring of the Great Lakes Toxics through the NAPS Network. He noted that the NAPS is a joint program of the federal, provincial and municipal governments, which monitors and assesses the quality of the ambient air, primarily in Canadian urban centers (some rural sites also monitored). He explained the existence of a strong network in Ontario, the funding for toxic substances which are mostly provided by the Environmental Protection Branch, Ontario Region, Environment Canada. He explained that NAPS measures a variety of substances including PAHs, PCDD/PCDF, HCB, PCP, OCS, VOCs and metals. Tom presented various charts illustrating the ranges and trends of various substances at both urban and rural sites. He noted that best data has been collected in Windsor, Ontario thanks to study that was conducted around  the Detroit Resource Recovery Center incinerator in the early 90’s.

Based on NAPS, Tom noted:

Tom further indicated that NAPS does not measure any pesticides or PCB concentrations.

Contaminant Monitoring in the Great Lakes

Scott Painter, of Environment Canada, presented an overview of water and sediment monitoring of toxics in the Great Lakes. He described that under the GLWQA, open-lake sampling for Lake Ontario, Erie, Huron, and Superior has been ongoing since 1986. A wide spectrum of toxic substances was analyzed, including organochlorines, PAHs, and metals. Scott indicated that the concentrations and loads of most toxics have dropped by at least 60% since 1986.  Scott noted that the Lindane and Dieldrin concentrations are ubiquitous in all the lakes, and that HCB, OCS, DDT, and Mirex patterns suggest localized sources.

In the early 1970s, Environment Canada had conducted sediment examinations on a wide range of contaminants, including organochlorines, PAHs, metals, and dioxin/furans, and emerging chemicals such as PBDE.  Scott noted that the study has shown a leveling off of concentrations of these substances at the top of the core.

Scott provided a brief overview of the Great Lakes Nearshore Monitoring and Assessment Program, which is an Ontario MOE initiative with a multi-media focus, and includes toxics biomonitoring and tributary toxics monitoring. He also described the GLNPO Sediment Assessment and Remediation Team, which provides technical, field and financial support for contaminated sediment work in the Great Lakes. A 70% reduction in dioxin concentrations have occurred in Lake Ontario since the 1960s, though the surface materials remain more toxic. The NYSDEC Rotating Intensive Basin Studiesvisits major basins every five years and tracks contaminants.

Scott concluded his presentation by describing that all of the programs he descried are involved in the LaMP’s, SOLEC, and GLBTS. Information gathered is used to link spatial messages with potential sources.

Anita Wong inquired about the OCS concentrations. She wanted to know if there is enough data available to show how significant OCS is in the environment. Scott suggested that the entire panel could go and look at their data in an amalgamated fashion to determine if enough data is available to create an OCS position paper.

Mercury, PCB, & Dioxin Trends in Herring Gull Eggs

Chip Weseloh, of Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) Environment Canada – Ontario Region, gave a presentation on the trend of contaminants in Great Lakes Herring Gulls. Chip explained  that the CWS used a change-point regression analysis to address the question: Have most contaminants declined at a constant rate since 1970, or has the rate of decline changed (slowed) over the course of the study? The change-point regression is a statistical method used to detect change in slope within a given temporal data set. Below are some of the findings of the study, using herring gull eggs as an indicator of contamination in Great Lakes:

In Summary:

Gary Gulezian asked if changes in diet would have an effect on the study. Chip indicated that Hearing Gulls’ diet is much more consistent than that of a ring tail gull (common sea gull). He noted that any change in contaminant intake would likely be reflective of changes in the concentrations of contaminants in fish. Tom Tseng asked if it was possible to have two change points. Chip responded that it could be statistically feasible.

Great Lakes Fish Contaminants

Sandy Hellman, USEPA, presented an overview of contaminants that cause fish advisories in Canada and the United States. She described trends in PBTs in trout and salmon in the Great Lakes. Sandy noted that the Great Lakes National Program Office, Great Lakes Fish Monitoring Program, and the USGS BRD have collected this data. The fish consumption limits are guidelines for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories, and that the values are fish tissue concentrations that allow for unrestricted monthly consumption.

Highlights of some of the findings of the project as follows:

Sandy explained that although there have been successes related to a decrease of toxins in fish some are still showing levels that may be harmful to human health.

Summary

Gary Gulezian and Danny Epstein thanked all attendees for their participation throughout the day. Danny noted that making progress is a balance between regulation and volunteerism. He emphasized that more work remains, and asked that all groups come together to help the GLBTS meet their targets by 2006. They invited all to join in the evening reception and dinner starting at 5:45 PM.  Danny also applauded the efforts of Alan Waffle, Karen Yang, Madhu Malhotra, Ted Smith, and E. Marie Philips in making the 5-Year event possible.

Attendees

David Ailor, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
Rich Andorson, Consultant
Marie-Caroline Badjeck, International Joint Commission
Robert Bailey, BAILEY ASSOCIATES
Tom Barnett, Ispat Inland
Mary Lynn Becker, Canadian Consulate General
Tom Beidler, Syngenta Crop Protection
Tonya Bender, Environment Canada
Paul Bertram, USEPA, GLNPO
Pierrette Blanchard, Meteorological Service of Canada, ARQP
Peter Boyer, Great Lakes Science Advisory Board 
Marty Bratzel, IJC
Andy Buchsbaum, NWF
Alexis Cain, US EPA
Kate Cardamone, University of Michigan
Raymond Chin, Environment Canada
Keith Christman, Chlorine Chemistry Council
Ric Coronado, Citizen Environment Alliance (CEA)
Katie Cullen, IWSA
Brad Cumming, Environment Canada
Stephanie Cuttler, University of Michigan
Tom Dann, Environment Canada
Ken De, Environment Canada
Richard  Delisle
Jim Downes, Solutia Inc.
Paul Drca, City of Windsor
Arthur Dungan, Chlorine Institute
Danny Epstein, Environment Canada
Marilea Fisher, Safety-Kleen (PPM)
Stewart Forbes, Jacques Whithid
Lori Fryzuk, Environment Canada
Gerald Galloway,IJC
John Gilkeson, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
Bruce Gillies, Environment Canada
Gary Gulezian, USEPA GLNPO
Paul Hansen, DaimlerChrysler Canada
Keith Hanson, Minnesota Power
Meenaz Hassanali, McKenzieParis
Martin Hassenbach, CONTECH - PCB Containment Technology
Sandy Hellman, USEPA
Neena Hemmady, ComEd - Environmental Services/Exelon
Darryl Hogg, Contractor, Environment Canada
Dan Hopkins, USEPA
Thomas Hornshaw, llinois EPA
Paul Horvitin, US EPA
Dean Jacobs, Walpole Island First Nation
Abigail Jarka, Delta Institute
Joseph Johnson, Defense National Stockpile Center
Allan Jones, Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee
Robert Jones, Defense National Stockpile Center
Jason Killoran, CONTECH - PCB Containment Technology
Duck Kim, Environment Canada
Bob Kozopas, OPG
Robert Krauel, Environment Canada
George Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Dennis Leonard, Detroit Edison Company
Sandro, Leonardelli, Environment Canada
Nicholas Lewis, Cascadea Fine Paper Group, Thunder Bay Inc.
Jack Lewis, SUNPRO
Raymond Lewis, SUNPRO
Zoe Lipman, NWF/Consultant
Dennis Lynch, Defense National Stockpile Center
Kitty Ma, Environment Canada
Madhu Malhotra, Environment Canada
Anton Martig, US EPA
Hugh McAlear, US Army Northern Regional Environmental Office
John, McDonald, IJC
Megan McGarrity, McKenzieParis
James McKenzie, McKenzieParis
Tex McLeod, Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association of Canada
John Menkedick, Battelle
Shawn Michajluk, Environment Canada
John Mills, Environment Canada
Juliana Molianari, Environment Canada
Nemene Mosgrove, Environment Canada
Bailey Myllville, Great Lakes United
Susan Nameth, Environment Canada
Todd Nettesheim, USEPA
David Niemi, Environment Canada Pollution Data Branch
Ian Orchard, Environment Canada
Dan O'Riordan, USEPA, Region 5
Scott Painter, Environment Canada
Dale Phenicie, CGLI
E. Marie Phillips, USEPA
Darrell Piekarz, Environment Canada
Lou Pocalujka, Consumers Energy
Steven Radcliffe, MOEE
David Ralston, Transformer Decommissioning
Bill Rankin, Olin Corporation
Nikole Reaksecker, University of Michigan
Kevin Reilly, Defense National Stockpile Center
Steve Risotto, HSIA
Steve Rosenthal, USEPA
Linda Samek, Ontario Dental Association
Joe Santarcangelo, Environment Canada
Judy Shaw, Syngenta Crop Protection
Harvey Shear, Environment Canada
Cathy Simon, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Edwin Smith, USEPA
Robert Springer, USEPA
Robert Stempel, Energy Conversion Devices Inc.
Joseph Stepun, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Mark Stone, Naval Dental Research Institute
Evelyn Strader, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Amy Thomas, Battelle
Vicki Thomas, USEPA
Tom Tseng, Environment Canada
David Ullrich, USEPA
Jennifer Vincent, Environment Canada
Alan Waffle, Environment Canada
Rebecca Wagner, Environment Canada
Elizabeth Walsh USEPA GLNPO
Chip Weseloh, Environment Canada
Erin White, USEPA
Anita Wong, Environment Canada
Karen Yang, Environment Canada

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.