GLBTS Links

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholders Forum - Chicago, Illinois

September 18, 2002
Integration Group Meeting
Chicago, Illinois

Summary Report of the Proceedings
Welcome, Introductions and Stakeholder Activity Updates

Garry Gulezian, Director of the Great Lakes National Programs Office of US EPA welcomed the participants and noted that the meeting would address several issues important to the Great Lakes Binational Strategy (GLBTS). Gary also announced that a film crew would be shooting short segments of the meeting for a POPs video being prepared by the EPA.

Danny Epstein, Regional Director of Environmental Protection Branch – Ontario Region, also welcomed and thanked the participants for attending. He acknowledged the attendance of Marie France Berard from the Quebec Region of Environment Canada, and stated that she was attending to learn more about GLBTS and how the Quebec office might contribute to the Strategy.

James McKenzie, the meeting facilitator, introduced the agenda and invited participants to introduce themselves and briefly report any updates that they wish to share. He also introduced Fatima Shariff, a new member of the facilitation team, who will be responsible for preparing the meeting summary.

Update on Pilot Projects

Rural POTW Outreach Project – Jack Annis, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point
Jack Annis, of the University of Wisconsin (UW) Stevens Point, gave a presentation about a rural Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) outreach project designed to eliminate Persistent Bio-Accumulation Toxic Substances (PBTs). The EPA is funding the project and is presenting it to the Integration Group as a potential pilot project for the POTW sector.

The UW Solid and Hazardous Waste Education Center (SHWEC) operates as a state Technical Assistance Provider (TAP) and, in Stevens Point, Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee, offers non-regulatory compliance assistance programs on pollution prevention, waste reduction, recycling, energy conservation, and EMS training. The proposed project will use the TAP resources to promote the elimination of PBT contributions to the environment in the small communities of Wisconsin by working with their POTW’s. Wisconsin currently has approximately 500 small POTWs, many of which were built in the 1970s and 1980s and are, therefore, approaching age and capacity limits and are wrestling with infrastructure and pollutant loading issues. The primary PBTs targeted by this project are: mercury released from wastewater; air emissions and groundwater leaching from solid waste land fills; and, dioxins released from burn barrels and other combustion sources. The project hopes to give POTW operators both the knowledge of general pollution prevention principles and the tools necessary to reduce PBTs. The training will be of no cost to the participants.

The Wisconsin Pollution Prevention Partnership (WIP2), through a collaborative effort among the Wisconsin departments of Trade and Consumer Protection and Commerce and Natural Resources and the UW-Extension, coordinated a website (http://www.uwex.edu/erc/p2.html ) for ongoing education. It serves as an information source for the public and provides direct links to various UW staff and programs involved in pollution prevention, and to international, national, regional and state PBT resources. Noting that there is some uncertainty with knowing whether the project will achieve direct reductions of PBTs or only increase community awareness, Jack concluded his presentation by stating that the project has potential to produce important outcomes.

Questions, Concerns, Responses:
Jack provided the following clarification and detail on questions asked by stakeholders:

The project will rely on mercury monitoring medical facilities in the region to measure mercury levels. The problem of dioxins released from burn barrels will be approached by educating the public using a POTW since many POTWs also represent the front line of environmental protection in those regions.
The project methodology works in two phases. First, what is pertinent and important to the community will be identified. Then, a relationship with these communities will be established to deal with the issues identified. An example is the need to reduce residential wood consumption. The project will address this issue by feeding information about wood stoves to the communities through the WIP2 website.
Currently there are no accurate records of person hours being spent in each community. Efficient and effective procedures for record keeping, measurement, and evaluation will be adopted in the near future. Services provided by SHWEC are of no charge.
UW is currently not seeing any push back from consulting companies who would normally do this type of work and do not expect to ever have such a problem as they deal primarily with small consulting firms. UW presently has an excellent relationship with consultants as it shares its information with them and allows them to partner on educational programs.
The municipal level is very interested in applying environment protection. The next step for land implementation is in the partnering up of municipalities, and in using the AOC infrastructure to get connected with municipalities.
Comments and questions regarding the project can be e-mailed to Jack at: jannis@uwsp.edu.

Severn Sound Initiative – Environment Canada Multiple Municipal P2 Project – Allan Waffle, Environment Canada
The Severn Sound Environmental Association (SSEA) is a local partnership between local municipalities in the Severn Sound (SS) area of Ontario. The SSEA, in cooperation with Environment Canada (EC) through the GLBTS, wants to work to protect and sustain the SS ecosystem. The Severn Sound is located within a Canadian area of concern (AOC), but is under consideration for de-listing.

In speaking to how this initiative was identified, Danny Epstein noted that the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was looking for a project at the municipal level. The UNEP partnered with EC in a workshop held in Toronto to consider cities as sustainable ecosystems. The Melbourne Principles [PDF 302Kb 16pps], the product of a similar conference in Melbourne, provide a strategic framework for action at the municipal level.. In keeping with these principles, EC suggested that SSEA examine the chemicals that GLBTS has prioritized. Such an initiative will help information gathering about the needs of the community and the compilation of an inventory of BTS related toxics in the region.

Allan then summarized a conference call among the members of the sector subgroup on September 16th. That call reviewed the draft statement of work for the SSEA pilot project. Suggestions to the draft scope of work were made, and the Scope of Work, noted below, reflects suggested changes. Suggestions and comments are still welcomed.

Scope of Work

In cooperation with the municipalities in the SS area, identify and quantify the storage, release and use of persistent toxic substances listed in the Canada- United States Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy.
Provide a summary of ambient baseline contaminant concentrations in various media from the SS area that will indicate presence of potential or active sources by substance.
Prioritize GLBTS chemical reductions opportunities.
Conduct consultation amongst the eight municipalities of SS area concerning the toxics management strategy.
Produce a draft toxics management strategy document

The draft toxics management strategy document is targeted to be complete by March 31 2003. An update on the progress of the project will be provided at the Integration Group meeting in February 2003.

Questions, Concerns, Responses:

The pilot project is not related to the delisting of the SS since it is a separate initiative. The project purpose is to identify what municipalities can do to reduce toxic substances.
The GLBTS is not funding this initiative, not is it a funding source.

Next Steps for Substance Work Group

Responses to Current Level 1 Challenge Goal Queries – Allan Waffle, EC, and Ted Smith, EPA
Ted presented a status update on the mercury, PCB, dioxins/furan, HCB/B(a)P and OCS workgroups. Allan presented a status update on the OCS, pesticides, alkyl-lead, sediments, and long-range transport workgroups. In addition to providing updates, the purpose of this presentation was to raise and discuss issues concerning the future work of the Integration Group. The presentation addressed the three questions posed at the May Integration Group meeting:

Where challenge goals have been met, what, if any, additional opportunities exist that can take us further down the road toward virtual elimination?
Where challenge goals have not been met, what work remains to be done?
Where challenge goal dates have lapsed, how should the Strategy reflect this?

Mercury Workgroup

40% reductions to date in the US. The US goal of reducing mercury releases by 50% will be met by 2006.
Mercury releases have been reduced by 78% in Canada. The Canadian goal of reducing mercury releases by 90% is expected to be achieved by 2006.
Continuous efforts are being made to reduce mercury releases in both Canada and the US.
Preliminary Conclusion: Work remains to be done in the Basin.

Questions, Concerns, Responses

Alexis Cain noted that a regulation limiting waste from incinerators and electric plants has been looked at, and the main action in these sectors is being met by regulation (i.e., MACT, etc) and not voluntary activity. Edwina Lopes noted that the power generation sector in Canada is regulated by the Canada-wide Standards that address mercury limits. Anita Wong commented that, in Ontario, certain plants are going to be shut down to reduce the number of electric power plants in the province. Gary Gulezian noted that there is still opportunity for further reduction of toxic substances. Danny Epstein noted that the GLBTS will be taking a closer look at its final goals as it moves closer to 2006.

PCB Workgroup

30% PCB reductions to date in the US. The US has set goals for reducing PCB emissions by 90% by 2006.
PCB emissions have seen an 80% reduction in Canada. Canadian goals include reducing mercury releases by 90% by 2000. Continuing efforts to achieve challenge goals will continue.
Preliminary Conclusion: Much work remains to be done in the Basin.

Questions, Concerns, Responses
Issues of difficulties resulting from actions prior to the baseline need to be addressed. The update report on monitoring efforts to deal with PCB emissions from waste disposal did not provide specific data nor a follow up report. Comments affirmed that a project would be a good opportunity to monitor specific sources within urban regions, and would allow workgroups to find point sources of PCB emissions and strategies to reduce them. Tom Holzen and Terry (surname ???) have done work, funded by the EPA, showing the need to identify point sources.

Gary Gulezian responded to concerns about the difficulty in reducing the percentage of toxics that have already been reduced by large amounts. He noted that PCB concentrations in the Great Lakes are significantly lower from the time that PCBs were first banned. Ken De noted that work remains to be done on PCBs presently in use. The target is to reduce PCBs from major emitters; however, a better tracking system is needed in Canada to accomplish this to assist the GLBTS in evaluating its reduction goals. Tony Martig noted that major tracking initiatives have begun in the US and major companies have gotten involved in PCB disposal.

Clarification was sought about the PCB workgroup Canadian challenge of reaching 90% reductions by 2000 as they have thus far only reached 80% reductions. Ken De responded that the 80% refers to the database that tracked PCB reduction as of the 1993 baseline statistics reported to EC by industry.

Dioxins/Furans Workgroup

The US challenge of reducing releases by 75% has been met.
Significant progress has been made (79% reduction) toward the Canadian challenge of reducing releases by 90%. It is anticipated that the Canadian challenge will be met by 2005.
Additional opportunities to reduce dioxins and furans have been identified by the workgroup.
Preliminary Conclusion: Reduction opportunities are available and information gaps still exist.

Questions, Concerns, Responses
It was reported that the medical waste disposal project in Ontario has been put on hold.

An update report stated that the US has met its challenge goal. A question was asked about whether this was based on estimates or measurements of reduction. Ted Smith noted that the numbers were based on mapped reductions.

HCP/B(a)P Workgroup

The US unquantified goal of reducing HCP/B(a)P releases by 2006 has been met.
Progress has also been made in Canada where a 60% reduction of B(a)P is anticipated by 2005 and an 80% reduction of HCB is expected by 2006.
Future workgroup actions have been identified.
Preliminary Conclusion: Much work still needs to be done in the Basin.

Questions, Concerns, Responses
Although the US challenge set out by the working group was not quantified, Ted noted that a 30-40% reduction of each had been reached. Clarification was also sought in the discrepancy between the Canadian and US goals. Ted re-emphasized that the goals for this workgroup have been met.

OCS Workgroup

The challenge goals for both the US and Canada have been met.
Additional opportunities have been identified by the workgroup.
Preliminary Conclusion: No plans for future workgroup activity.

Questions, Concerns, Responses
How will the GLBTS deal with an increase in reported concentrations of OCS in the future? A participant suggested that workgroup goals need to be rephrased since levels are rising. Gary Gulezian noted that it is important to look at data and at other sources of change as other substances and emissions also have the ability to impact the biota in the same was as OCSs. Danny Epstein noted that the outcomes of the analysis will determine whether or not the GLBTS need look further into this issue.

Pesticide Workgroup

The challenge goals for both countries have been met.
Additional opportunities to further reduce pesticides include tracking the progress of Level 1 pesticides in environmental media, assessing the potential for long-range transport; continuing clean sweeps in the Great Lakes states, and exploring Level II pesticides.
Preliminary Conclusion: GLBTS efforts should remain limited to the above.

Questions, Concerns, Responses
Concern was noted about the status of pesticides if attention does not move to Level II. David Macarus responded the pesticides review has been delayed and that the workgroup will meet to discuss the status of pesticides once the regulatory issues have been resolved between the two countries. Concern was noted about the release of waste containing pesticides and that there is a need to survey waste disposal sites for contamination. Response comments included assurance that sites are being remediated and that the use and release of materials have been canceled long enough to confirm that they are no longer present. Locations that may store pesticides continue to be remediated. All potential sources have been addressed but the BTS will continue to look at new sources.

Sediments

Progress is being made in sediment remediation activities in both AOCs and non-AOCs in the US and Canada.
Continuing efforts of sediment remediation include tracking and reporting progress and sharing knowledge on remediation and implementation.

Questions, Concerns, Responses
Concern was noted about not complying with the IJC requirement of providing a clear commitment on the part of governments for remediation of sediments, and that sediment contamination should not be moved to another association since the GLBTS has made commitments to clean up. A proposal was made to establish a small workgroup to discuss how the GLBTS can contribute to the remediation of sediment contamination. It was noted that the workgroup is working on cleaning up sediments but that it does not have a specific agenda.

Alkyl-Lead Workgroup

The challenge goals for both countries have been met.
Alkyl-Lead is still present in small quantities but will be eliminated over a longer period of time.
Additional opportunities have been identified by the workgroup.
Preliminary Conclusion: Limited workgroup effort at this point

Long-Range Transport

Both countries are making progress toward their goals.
A bilateral expert’s workshop has been planned for 2003.

Summary
The communications strategy and sectoral approach were identified as needs by more than one workgroup. The workgroup status updates will allow the Integration Group to deal with the fundamental issue of changing BTS goals once initial challenges have been met. Secondly, these updates will lead BTS to deal with the issue of moving toxics from level I to level II categories.

Industrial Boiler Energy Efficiency Project – Tim Brown and Abby Jarka, Delta Institute

Tim Brown and Abby Jarka from the Delta Institute gave an informative presentation titled “Sector-Based Pollution Prevention: Toxic Reductions through Energy Efficiency and Conservation Among Industrial Boilers.” Tim noted that energy efficiency improvements are expected to provide significant opportunity to reduce energy consumption as well as emissions of certain toxic air emissions. The purpose of the study was to identify emissions reduction opportunities through energy efficiency. An aggregate analysis was conducted to find opportunities for energy efficiency in coal and residual fired boilers. Nine facilities, consisting of over 30 boilers, were visited. Fifty recommendations, many of which were facility-specific, were proposed to industrial boiler owners. The study found that steamed systems offered the best opportunity for improvement. The study also indicated that there is an opportunity for energy efficiency improvements and toxic reductions in the industrial boiler sector. Convincing industrial boiler owners to take advantage of the recommendations and implement them is the next step.

Efforts to implement strategies promoting energy efficiency need to be joint initiatives between government, federal agencies, hospitals, universities, industry and other stakeholders. Stakeholders can work together to develop a budget and framework to move the project forward. Barriers of promoting energy efficiency for industrial boiler owners include the lack of expertise, management practices, financial costs, and environmental regulations. These barriers can be overcome by offering incentives such as tax redemptions, public recognition, technical assistance, and financing. The proposed next step is to conduct a sub-regional industrial boiler energy efficiency outreach campaign to achieve meaningful reductions of toxic compounds. Tim and Abby concluded by thanking the USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office for funding the project. They also acknowledged the facilities that participated in the assessments, CIBO, the Wisconsin DNR, and the Wisconsin Focus on Energy for their involvement

Questions, Concerns, Responses
Tom and Abby provided the following clarification to questions asked by stakeholders:

A complete report of the study is available at www.delta-institute.org .
Effective agents for this project include a combination of federal agencies, industry, state resources, and financial resources. Bundling these agents together into a package is an important tool that will encourage industry to take advantage of the recommendations.
A presentation was made to CEPA, as they were and currently are interested in promoting the project. They helped identify energy efficient opportunities for their departments and members. Boiler owners are also showing cooperation with the Delta Institute and are appreciative of its efforts to identify new opportunities for energy efficiency.
The steam system does not include co-generation, but the study did look at this option and found that it is very difficult to quantify. Co-generation was presented as an option to the facilities.
Only one of the nine facilities will be implementing recommendations next year. This facility is strongly supported by the Wisconsin Focus on Energy. Insufficient follow up has been done since the last audit. The Delta Institute is therefore unsure of the reasons why other facilities have not decided on implementing the recommendations. It is planning follow up research for the near future.

Overview of Current US and Canadian Programs/Processes for Listing PBTs – John Menkedick, Battelle

The objective of this presentation was to provide a brief overview of current processes and methodologies that might be used as tools by the GLBTS to develop a decision process and to initiate discussion about a GLBTS process for listing/delisting substances. John identified eight processes. His presentation was based on a compilation of public documents and conversations with leaders of the eight processes.

There are two ways to use the process tools provided by each of the eight processes. One is to adopt the actual lists of chemicals that they present. The other is to employ methodologies similar to those used in the processes. Two primary methodologies can be used:

Comprehensive Risk Evaluation: Requires a comprehensive risk assessment process and is feasible for chemical by chemical selection.
Quantitative Screening Algorithm: Includes a more deterministic screening algorithm that ranks chemicals based on existing data and quantitative algorithms. This methodology is useful for when identifying groups of chemicals for action.

Processes for listing / de-listing substances used by the eight Programs

United Nations Environmental Program: Persistent Organic Pollutants “UNEP POPs”
North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation: Sound Management of Chemicals “CEC SMOC”
Council of Great Lakes Industry Proposal “CGLI Proposal”

The above three processes are very thorough and consist of major international efforts. They are defensible, transparent, and present tools to select single chemicals. The processes, however, have numerous limitations as they are resource and time intensive, rely on qualitative judgments of risk assessment, are long term.

Canada’s Toxic Substances Management Policy “TSMP”
EPA’s PBT Strategy “PBT Strategy”
EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program “EDSP”
EPA’s PBT Profiler
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: Bioaccumulative Chemicals of concern “GLWQA BCCs”

Many factors must be considered when creating a decision tree for GLBTS. These factors include simplicity, transparency, scientific and risk-based defensibility, resource requirements (expertise, data, analysis, consensus), timeframes, and GLBTS specific objectives. General steps and factors to consider when deciding on a GLBTS decision tree include the nomination process, screening criteria; and, GLBTS evaluations. De-listing options include an evaluation for minimal risk, GLBTS quantitative algorithm and removal of substances from the Level I or Level II lists when target reductions are met (substances can be nominated for re-listing).

Questions, Concerns, Responses
It was suggested that the substance selection process should be left to larger entities that have the resources and measures to categorize chemicals that are applicable to the Basin. Ted Smith noted that such a proposal is not that different from what was being suggested today. He clarified that the GLBTS is not suggesting to adopt a rich, intensive analysis as it does not have the resources. Rather, it is looking to utilize resources that already exist and design a decision tree algorithm where GLBTS input can be added.

Concern was expressed regarding the criteria for nominating substances as the GLBTS does not have a clear system to nominate chemicals. Danny Epstein responded by pointing out that the GLBTS is looking for substances that are prevalent to more than one basin, an issue that has not been fully dealt with.

Danny Epstein suggested that the GLBTS work backward from the recommendations given in the workgroup updates to identify substances that are important to the Basin region. He also noted the GLBTS delivery mechanism has to be one that allows for the sharing of information, and that is simple and transparent. The value of this forum is to integrate information. Gary Gulezian commented on the process for making future changes to the GLBTS chemical substance list. The GLBTS must think about widening its scope to include more than just PBTs. Gary also noted that up until now, the GLBTS has always favored voluntary initiatives, a position which perhaps needs to be re-examined as it might not be the appropriate approach.

Communications and Outreach Plan
Danny Epstein advised that the GLBTS, being a government sponsored forum, cannot deny the press from attending a meeting. Gary Gulezian added that one of the Strategy’s principles is transparency, and therefore the Integration Workgroup meetings and other sub-group meetings must be thought of as public meetings.

Madhu Malhotra provided an update on the communications plan. She acknowledged the importance of the policy. Letters have been sent out to workgroups asking them about what they want to see in a communications policy. Just under half of the workgroups have responded. Over the next few months, Madhu and her team will be consulting with the workgroups who have yet not responded. A more detailed report will be presented at the December Integration Group meeting. Nemone Musgrave is working with Madhu on the communications and outreach plan. Together they are working to deliver sound and pragmatic communications tools for the GLBTS.

Allan Waffle announced that the process of writing the annual GLBTS report will begin shortly and will build on last year’s success. Contributions highlighting stakeholder initiatives resulting in reductions of chemicals of concern are welcomed.

Agenda Planning
The next Integration Group meeting will be held jointly with the Stakeholder Forum in Chicago on December 3 and 4, 2002. The following meeting to be held in Windsor on February 26, 2003. Subsequent meetings will be held in Toronto on May 21 and 22, 2003.

Potential December meeting agenda items include:

Communications Plan.
Update on the status of sector subgroup initiatives.
Discussion on new substance listings. A presentation could include an explanation of institutional arrangements and relationships explaining who does what, how things are done, and the role and function of the IJC.
A presentation on the Global UNEP Mercury Strategy. This would provide stakeholders with more information about the emerging issues workshop in conjunction with the IJC’s Science Advisory Board.
Presentation from an expert on minimizing waste from mining operations.
Presentation from the Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Round Table.
Presentation on the progress of Level 2 substances.
Presentation on the SOLAC report (post SOLAC).

List of Attendees

Phillip (Jack) Annis, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point
Alex Basiji, Great Lakes Environment Office
Tom Beidler, Sungenta Crop Protection
Marie-France Berard, EC
Marty Bratzel, International Joint Commission
Breda, EC (???)
Tim Brown, Delta Institute
Alexis Cain, US EPA
Danny Epstein, Environment Canada
Gary Gulezian, USEPA-GLNPO
Keith Hanson, Minnesota Power
Dan Hopkins, U.S. EPA Region 5
John Jackson, Great Lakes United
Abby Jarka, Delta Institute
Allan Jones, Cnd Cl. Coordinating Committee
Anthony Kizlauskas, USEPA-GLNPO
Trace Klos, Canadian Consulate General (attending for Allen Brow, Counsel)
George Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Indust.
Liz Laplante
Zoe Lipman, National Wildlife Federation
Edwina Lopes, EC
David Macarus, US EPA Region 5
Madhu Malhotra, EC
Tony Martig, US EPA
James McKenzie, McKenzieParis
John Menkedick, BATTELLE
Nemone Musgrave, EC
Bailey Mylleville, Great Lakes United
Dan O’Riordan, US EPA Region 5
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes, Indust.
E. Marie Phillips, USEPA-GLNPO
Linda Poole, Canadian Consulate General (Attending for Allen Brow, Counsel)
Steven Rosenthal, US EPA
Fatima Shariff, McKenzieParis
Robert Simon, Chlorine Chemistry Council
Jim Smith, EC
Ted Smith, US EPA
Evelyn Strader, Council of Great Lakes Indust.
Tom Tseng, EC
Allan Waffle, EC
Erin White, US EPA
Anita Wong, EC
Margaret Wooster, Great Lakes United
Karen Yang, EC