Recent Additions | Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
> Great Lakes >  Great Lakes Pollution Prevention and Toxics Reduction > Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy> Meetings > Minutes > Summary: December 7, 2006

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholder Forum

Integration Workgroup Meeting
Chicago, Illinois
December 7, 2006 

Meeting Summary

Welcome, Introductions

Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA GLNPO), welcomed all participants to the Integration Workgroup meeting of the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS).  Gary announced that, at the request of a GLBTS stakeholder, the meeting would be web cast, on a trial basis, to GLBTS stakeholders who could not be present. Danny Epstein, Regional Director of Environmental Operations, Environment Canada (EC), commented that web casts of Integration Workgroup meetings would not be possible in all venues but may be useful for the 10^th anniversary meetings planned for May 2007 in Chicago. Danny noted that a discussion of planning for the 10th anniversary event was not included on the present meeting’s agenda.  He gave a brief outline of the schedule for the event and indicated that it would be discussed further at the next meeting in February.  There are three main components planned for the 10th anniversary event to be held on May 23-25, 2007, in Chicago:

1. An afternoon Stakeholder Forum session will be held similar to past Stakeholder Forum sessions but focusing on a summary of progress, ambient environmental trends, and successes.
2. A celebratory dinner, similar to the 5-year anniversary event, will be held at the South Shore Cultural Center with bus service from the downtown area.
3. A one-and-a-half-day workshop focusing on the future of the GLBTS is being planned by a group of GLBTS stakeholders, EC, and US EPA.  One planning conference call has been held, and two overarching themes for the workshop have been proposed: 
   1. What’s achievable under the existing GLBTS structure to address new substances of concern?
   2. What other impacts on the structure and mandate of the GLBTS can be inferred from the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) review?

Danny encouraged those who are interested to continue to participate in the planning process, and an update can be presented at the February Integration Workgroup meeting.

Danny also mentioned that the draft 2006 GLBTS progress report was available at the back table.  He encouraged anyone to submit highlights over the past 10 years to include in this 10th anniversary edition report.  Danny noted that he and Gary would be adding their 10-year perspective as well.

Stakeholder Activity Updates  

James McKenzie, facilitator for the meeting, introduced himself and invited participants around the table to introduce themselves and provide brief stakeholder activity updates. 

Julie Schroeder of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) announced that MOE has established a Great Lakes office with a new director who will be co-chairing a group on next steps for the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA), in collaboration with EC.

John McDonald, secretariat of the International Air Quality Advisory Board of the International Joint Commission (IJC) described some of the IJC’s current activities:  The IJC is developing a Mercury Compartment Model with Lake Ontario as the study area and will be working with the Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP).

Kendra Fogarty of the Canadian Consulate announced that she has been appointed as Great Lakes Strategic Network Coordinator, and her first project is a conference in Chicago on April 8-9, 2007.  More information about the conference will be announced in the near future.

Alan Waffle, EC, the Canadian secretariat for the GLBTS, reported on his travels to China in September.  Alan was invited to present on the GLBTS at the Harbin Institute of Technology, in the heart of China’s manufacturing industry.  He gave presentations on the GLBTS as well as the GLWQA, Great Lakes monitoring programs, and Canadian environmental regulations.  While in China, Alan also traveled to Sien, where he attended two sessions which focused on 1) China’s implementation of the Stockholm Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Convention, and 2) a mechanism for China to address contaminated sites.

Ted Smith of US EPA, the US co-lead for the GLBTS, announced that it was a great year with the GLWQA review and the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC).  Ted thanked the Integration Workgroup members for their contributions to these efforts during the past year.

Kristi Skebo of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) reported on several projects that the NWF is involved in, including:

• Outreach to vehicle salvage yards in Ohio;
• Completing outreach to other sectors, including contractors who work with mercury-containing thermostats;
• Finalizing a report on environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP) programs and meeting with select state purchasing agency staff;
• Participating in the toxic pollutants and special issues groups of the GLWQA review process; and
• Helping to plan for the GLBTS 10th anniversary emerging pollutants workshop to be held in May 2007.

Rachel Heckl of Great Lakes United (GLU) reported that GLU is working with GLBTS stakeholders and Great Lakes stakeholders to develop a Great Lakes Green Chemistry network, an item for discussion later in the day’s agenda. 

Ken De of EC, the Canadian PCB Workgroup co-chair, reported that new Canadian PCB regulations have been published in the Canada Gazette 1.  

Substance Workgroup Reports  

The co-chairs of the active substance workgroups (mercury, dioxin, PCBs, and HCB/B(a)P) presented updates on the previous day’s workgroup meetings. 

Mercury Workgroup
Alexis Cain of US EPA, the US Mercury Workgroup co-chair, began by recounting the Mercury Workgroup meeting.  Approximately 35 attendees participated in the Mercury Workgroup meeting.  Alexis noted that he had hoped to focus the meeting on mercury emissions from mining and smelting but that he encountered difficulty in lining up speakers from the mining and smelting industry.  The Mercury Workgroup meeting included the following presentations:

• Steve Hoffman of the US EPA Office of Solid Waste presented information on global releases from mining and smelting.  Emissions from artisanal gold mining, which uses mercury in the recovery of gold, are large and growing, and will probably exceed mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants worldwide.  He also discussed trends in mining and smelting in North America and opportunities for controlling releases.  The Mercury Workgroup will continue to focus on this sector and engage industry in a dialog.
• Mike Berndt of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources gave a presentation on mercury emissions from taconite, a low-grade iron that is mined in Michigan and Minnesota.  Taconite is not a large source of mercury (~ 300 kg/year).  Research is ongoing to develop potential controls for the taconite industry; appropriate controls are difficult to find because controls may not be transferable among different taconite facilities.
• Ashu Dastoor of EC presented information on global mercury monitoring, which has shown large impacts on North America from global emissions, particularly emissions from eastern Asia.  She also discussed modeling results showing the impact of deposition from Europe and North America.
• Dennis Leonard of DTE Energy posed the challenge of the need to address inconsistencies in Great Lakes standards and policies, for instance between water quality standards and fish that are safe to eat.  Dennis suggested that US EPA’s use of the same standard for various species of fish is another inconsistency, and he questioned the need to continue focusing on reducing mercury releases in the Great Lakes Basin versus focusing on other issues such as mercury levels in sediment at Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs).  Dennis proposed that the Mercury Workgroup hold a conference to address these issues.
• Dawn Jensen of ERCO Worldwide, which owns the mercury cell chlor-alkali facility in Port Edwards, Wisconsin, discussed a one-year $1 million study being conducted to evaluate the potential conversion of the facility to membrane cell technology, which does not use mercury.  The advantages of the membrane cell include lower energy use, lower costs of managing waste, avoided investment costs of complying with air emission standards, and the environmental benefits of eliminating mercury emissions.  The disadvantage is a high capital cost of approximately $80 million.  A decision is expected soon.
• Several presentations focused on programs to remove mercury from cars before they are shredded to avoid releasing the mercury in auto switches when scrap steel is melted.  Approximately 80 tons of mercury remain in vehicles on the road in the US, and approximately 10 tons in vehicles on the road in Canada. 
  • In August, an agreement to establish a national vehicle switch program in the US was signed by various auto and steel industry stakeholders as well as environmental groups.  The agreement establishes a fund with $2 million each from the steel industry and the auto industry to pay auto recyclers for each switch removed.  Auto manufacturers also pay for the transport and recycling of switches.  The program is currently operating in 22 states and is expected to be operating in all 50 states by the fall of 2007.
  • In Canada, the Clean Air Foundation has established a voluntary switch-out program with similar features to the US program described above.
  • In 2007, a Canadian regulation will require steel makers to develop pollution prevention plans that ensure the purchase of “clean” auto scrap (i.e., scrap from which auto switches have been removed).
• A Mercury Phasedown Strategy, as called for in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration recommendations, is being developed by a workgroup comprised of government, state, and other representatives.  The group is aiming to circulate a draft strategy document in early 2007.
• The Great Lakes Commission is leading an effort to coordinate mercury monitoring programs in the Great Lakes states.

Alexis reported that the workgroup decided to hold a conference call in January 2007 to discuss the future of the Mercury Workgroup as the 10-year anniversary of the GLBTS approaches.

PCB Workgroup
Tony Martig of US EPA, the US PCB Workgroup co-chair, summarized the PCB Workgroup meeting.  The workgroup discussed voluntary and regulatory actions to reduce PCBs, including:

• New Canadian PCB regulations, which will require the phase-out of PCB-containing equipment.  The comment period for this regulation is open until January 2, 2007.
• A financial analysis tool (which is also on the agenda for the present meeting).  The tool is ready for trial runs.  US EPA will follow-up with testing and distribution.
• An emissions study of PCB releases from in-service PCB transformers, conducted by the University of Chicago. The results of the study found that the average concentration of PCBs in a local steel mill was 16 ng/m2 (with a minimum of 6.2 ng/m2 and a maximum of 29 ng/m2).  Samples collected outside and at some distance from the facility had PCB levels of 1.4 to 2 ng/m2.  PCB levels inside the facility were 8 times higher than ambient levels.  The analysis also determined an emission factor of 0.19 kg per year for the release of PCBs from in-service PCB transformers. Further investigation of wipe samples, which found PCBs on surfaces in the building, is needed to determine if there are other possible sources of PCBs.

The workgroup also discussed next steps for the PCB Workgroup, which may include considering sources beyond PCB-containing equipment, as recommended by the PCB Management Assessment.  The PCB Workgroup will also consider working with other groups (e.g., Lake Superior LaMP, New York/New Jersey Harbor Project) to identify relative contributions from other sources such as small capacitors, non-liquid uses (e.g., paints, caulks), and the inadvertent generation of PCBs.

Dioxin Workgroup
Anita Wong of EC, the Canadian Dioxin Workgroup co-chair, presented a summary of the Dioxin Workgroup meeting.  The Dioxin Workgroup meeting included the following discussions:

• An update on the Burn Barrel Subgroup, which is still active with education and outreach activities.
• Review of a Learn Not to Burn Toolkit developed by US EPA in collaboration with the eight Great Lakes states. The Toolkit is part of an effort to change behavior and reduce backyard burning.  The workgroup also discussed potential mechanisms for distributing the Toolkit.
• The final US 2000 Dioxin Inventory, which was released on December 1, 2006, and changes in the emission estimates.
• Pathway intervention opportunities, with presentations by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada.  
  • The FDA developed a Dioxin Strategy in 2000 to monitor and gather additional data on dioxin levels in human food and animal feed.  International codes of practice have been developed by a consortium of countries to prevent and reduce dioxin contamination in food and feed.  The Dioxin Workgroup plans to review these codes of practice and determine if opportunities exist for the workgroup to distribute its message.
  • Health Canada presented data indicating declining dioxin trends in human milk and blood plasma over the past 25 years.  Health Canada’s guideline for general population exposure (1 pg per kilogram of bodyweight per day) assumes that approximately 60 percent of dioxin exposure comes through food.  This contrasts with the US finding that approximately 95 percent of dioxin exposure, for the general population, is from food.  The Dioxin Workgroup will follow-up on possible reasons for these differences.
  • The Canadian Food Inspection Agency monitors dioxins and furans in food and feed, and follow-up inspections are performed when high levels are discovered.  The FDA likewise investigates potential sources of contamination when abnormal levels of dioxin in food or feed are discovered.
• Agricultural burning, an issue which the workgroup has discussed during the past year.  There is a need to gather more information on activity levels, to review the current infrastructure for waste disposal, and to consider possible barriers to alternative waste disposal options.
• Review of the Dioxin Management Assessment outcomes, in light of the approaching 10-year anniversary of the GLBTS.  The workgroup will continue this discussion on a conference call before the February 2007 Integration Workgroup meeting.  The workgroup concluded that it is challenging to obtain further significant reductions, but the job is not done.  The GLBTS is an important forum for engaging stakeholders, gathering information, and conducting outreach activities.  The need to raise the issue of sediment contamination and to determine the magnitude of dioxin contamination in sediments was also noted.

HCB/B(a)P Workgroup
Steve Rosenthal of US EPA, the US HCB/B(a)P Workgroup co-chair, presented a summary of the HCB/B(a)P Workgroup meeting.  The HCB/B(a)P Workgroup meeting included the following discussions:

• Emission inventories. 
  • EC has developed Ontario HCB and B(a)P emission estimates for 1988 and 2005.  The largest reductions in B(a)P emissions have resulted from coke ovens. The largest reductions in HCB emissions have resulted from pesticide application, but this remains the most significant source category.
  • The Great Lakes Commission has conducted a re-assessment of the 2002 Great Lakes B(a)P inventory. A revised version of the B(a)P inventory is not yet available, but it is expected to show a 30 percent reduction in emissions from the previous version, and no new source categories.  Inventory estimates for non-road B(a)P emissions are expected to decrease and backyard burning emissions to increase. Some new source categories need to be included (e.g., outdoor boilers). In addition, there is a need to confirm the results of receptor modeling which shows diesel engines as a large source of B(a)P.
• Monitoring results from the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN).  IADN results indicate long-term declines in HCB levels, and higher B(a)P levels in winter than in other seasons. 
• Steel industry emissions. Ed Wojciechowski of US EPA, a steel industry expert, presented a history of coke ovens and changes in their environmental impact, as well as the nature of regulations governing their emissions.
• HCB modeling study. Dr. Jianmin Ma presented HCB modeling results that used US Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data and data from Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). Preliminary results indicate a large impact on the Great Lakes Basin from out-of-basin sources of HCB.
• Scrap tire piles.  A representative of the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) provided an update on scrap tire piles and markets for used tires in the US.  New uses (e.g., tire-derived fuel) are found for 87 percent of used tires.  Some Great Lakes states are doing better than others in finding markets for their scrap tires.
• Chemical industry reductions.  Steve Risotto of the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) reported that he polled HSIA members and found that further HCB reductions are not anticipated, although an updated National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) should result in additional reductions of HCB in the chemical industry.
• Residential wood combustion activities, including wood stove changeout programs.
• Outdoor wood boilers.  US EPA has developed a two-pronged program to address outdoor wood boilers that includes states and boiler manufacturers.
• Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative.  Steve Rosenthal of US EPA provided an update on this US EPA Region 5 initiative.
• Treated Wood.  Curtis Englot of EC presented an update on actions addressing treated wood.

Questions

Following the workgroup updates, several questions were raised by Integration Workgroup members.  Allan Jones of the Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council sought clarification of Alexis’ reference to having difficulty in obtaining presentations by the mining and smelting industry for the Mercury Workgroup meeting.  Allan noted that the mining and smelting industry gave a few presentations at the Mercury Workgroup meeting.  Alexis agreed that the workgroup does have good industry participation.  He explained that he was referring to participation by the mining and smelting sector, which didn’t occur due to scheduling conflicts. Dale Phenicie of the Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI) offered CGLI’s assistance in obtaining industry participation.

John Jackson of Great Lakes United raised the issue of contaminated sediments and the need to consider the role of the GLBTS over and above reporting on contaminated sediment remediation progress.

Ray Vaughan of the New York State Attorney General’s Office inquired about the main incentives for on-road diesel registered trucks to reduce emissions. Steve Rosenthal responded that US regulations will be phased in for on-road vehicles; ultra-low sulfur fuel is currently available, as are grants to retrofit diesel engines. US EPA’s SmartWay program includes voluntary measures with incentives to reduce emissions, for example, by installing auxiliary power units and improving the aerodynamics of trucks.  Erin Newman of US EPA, the US Dioxin Workgroup co-chair, noted additional efforts to reduce diesel emissions, including joint US EPA efforts with Canada in the Detroit-Windsor area; the Midwest Clean Diesel Initiative in EPA Region 5; and a Northeast region initiative.  Ray inquired about day-to-day enforcement in individual states.  Erin replied that there are no inspections, but new rules will address diesel emissions.

Lin Kaatz Chary of the Northwest Indiana Toxics Action Project observed that trucks along I-94, a major thoroughfare in the Great Lakes region, do not shut off their engines when stopped.  Erin reported that truck stop electrification, which allows trucks to turn off their engines, is being installed and many other diesel reduction actions are being taken in Region 5. Erin suggested that these activities could be presented at a future Integration Workgroup meeting. Gary Gulezian added that such a presentation could include information on state or local regulations on diesel emissions and enforcement actions.  Danny Epstein commented that each region has different issues.  Diesel emissions are the focus of EPA Region 10 (Seattle/Vancouver area) and the Yukon in Canada, where diesel is a larger issue due to the effects of mountain ranges. Anita Wong noted that Canadian regulations on sulfur and diesel emissions usually follow those in the US.

Craig Wardlaw of Headwater Environmental Services offered a suggestion related to PCBs.  Municipal waste recycling depots do not currently accept small PCB equipment, such as light ballasts in homes and small businesses.  Enabling this to happen would offer an excellent opportunity to keep PCBs out of the environment.

Lake Superior Milestone Report

James introduced Carri Lohse-Hanson of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Lake Superior Binational Coordinator and US co-chair of the Chemical Committee of the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP).  Carri acknowledged Kate Taillon of EC, the Canadian co-chair.

Carri reported that the Lake Superior LaMP Chemical Committee has recently completed a Lake Superior 2005 Chemical Milestones report, which covers the following four areas:

1. Zero discharge
2. Pollutant inventories
3. Levels and trends of pollutants in Lake Superior
4. Steps to meet the next milestones for Lake Superior.

Carri discussed the zero discharge goal for Lake Superior, which was a challenge issued by stakeholders at a 1989 International Joint Commission biennial meeting.  The nine critical chemicals targeted for zero discharge and zero emissions are chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, PCBs, dioxin, HCB, mercury, octachlorostyrene, and toxaphene. The Lake Superior LaMP, which serves as a platform for zero discharge, sets reduction schedules for each of these chemicals, with a goal of 100 percent reduction in 2020 and interim milestones leading up to that goal.  The Lake Superior 2005 Chemical Milestones report presents progress (since the baseline year 1990) and next steps for 2010.

Carri presented brief excerpts from the milestones report, showing progress in reducing mercury, dioxin, PCBs, and pesticides. In brief:

• Mercury discharges and emissions have been reduced 71 percent from 1990 levels.
• Dioxin has been reduced 76 to 79 percent since 1990.
• PCBs are being decommissioned in Ontario and the states.
• Waste pesticide collections are still bringing in banned pesticides (12,700 kg in Minnesota and Wisconsin since 1992).
• In general, most toxic chemicals measured in Lake Superior biota have declined.

Carri also presented examples of contaminant levels and trends:  Legacy contaminants are decreasing in herring gull eggs from 1974 to 2004; there is no clear trend in toxaphene levels in lake trout; and emerging contaminants (e.g., PBDEs) are increasing in lake trout.

Finally, Carri presented proposals for meeting future Lake Superior milestones:

• The 2010 mercury milestone requires an additional reduction of 200 kg/yr.
• The 2015 dioxin milestone requires a reduction of 3.1 to 4.0 g I-TEQ/yr.
• While PCBs are steadily being disposed, a method of measuring progress in reducing PCBs is needed.
• Collections within the basin continue to bring in waste pesticides, providing evidence for the continuing need for such collections.
• A preventative approach is needed to stop the increase of emerging contaminants at the same time that their toxic effects are being studied.

Questions

Danny Epstein asked to what extent the GLBTS Mercury Workgroup or Dioxin Workgroup could help identify opportunities to meet the Lake Superior milestones, including funding opportunities. Such opportunities would benefit both Lake Superior and the Great Lakes as a whole.

Lin Kaatz Chary commented that Carri’s mercury discharge chart indicates a drop in mercury-containing products.  This shows the importance of product campaigns.  For example, changing product purchasing habits has an effect on emissions.  Lin suggested that the same can be done with emerging substances.

When asked to clarify the term “disposed” in the PCBs chart, Carri responded that the source of the data is hazardous waste manifests; these are wastes that are incinerated or landfilled.

Regarding PCB wastes disposed, Ken De of EC commented that the City of Thunder Bay has removed all PCBs and has been awarded a plaque by the GLBTS PCB Workgroup.  Thunder Bay Hydro is also over 90 percent PCB free for high-level PCBs, as are many companies in Ontario.  Ken offered to help provide updated values on quantities of PCBs removed from the Lake Superior Basin.

Dave Macarus of US EPA commented on the waste pesticide collections.  The data for 2000 showed that collections of pesticides had doubled since 1996.  The 2004 data showed that we still have not collected the last pound and that continuing pesticide collections is worthwhile.  Dave also asked if the milestones report considers other emerging compounds besides PBDEs.  Carri noted that Chapter 4 of the report discusses other emerging compounds.  A discussion of emerging compounds is also presented in the Lake Superior LaMP 2006 update.

Michigan Dioxin Exposure Study

James introduced David Garabrant of the University of Michigan, School of Public Health, professor of occupational medicine and epidemiology. Dr. Garabrant presented the findings of a dioxin exposure study conducted by the University of Michigan with financial support from the Dow Chemical Company.  Dr. Garabrant explained that study investigators report to an independent Scientific Advisory Board; Dow has no involvement in the conduct of the study.

Dow has been located along the Tittabawassee River in Midland, Michigan, for over 100 years.  Dioxins and furans originating from Dow have contaminated the Tittabawassee River and surrounding areas.  Sediments and soil downstream of Dow are highly contaminated, sporadically up to 15,000 ppt.  Public parks in Saginaw, Michigan, post warnings of the dioxin/furan contamination in soil and advise caution against direct skin contact with soil. Approximately 5,000 people live in the flood plain downstream of Dow, and residents were concerned about whether living on contaminated soil contributed to body burdens of dioxins/furans. The University of Michigan study sought to determine whether serum dioxin levels were related to soil dioxin levels.

The study investigated 695 residents in the Midland/Saginaw area, interviewing them and collecting samples of soil, household dust, and blood.  For comparison purposes, blood samples were collected from 251 residents of Jackson and Calhoun Counties, an area 100 miles south of Midland with no known industrial source of dioxin/furans.  Samples were analyzed for dioxin, furan, and PCB congeners. Analyses were controlled for the effects of other factors (e.g., age, sex, body mass index (BMI), fish consumption, meat consumption, residential proximity to Dow).

The results showed a log normal distribution of serum TEQ concentrations with a median value of 26 ppt and a mean of 32 ppt.  These levels are similar to dioxin concentrations for the general US population reported in the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES).  Additional study results included:

• Absolute increases in dioxin blood levels due to living on contaminated soil or living in Midland/Saginaw were small.
• The percentage increases in some instances were appreciable (e.g., gardening in highly contaminated soil).
• The most important factors related to serum dioxin levels – age, sex, and BMI – accounted for ~50 percent of the variation in blood levels of dioxins (TEQ) among people.
  • Cigarette smoking is significantly associated with lower dioxin blood levels.
  • For females, increasing BMI is associated with lower blood dioxin levels; for males, increasing BMI is associated with higher blood dioxin levels.
• Eating fish and game (especially from the contaminated areas), doing water-related activities, and certain occupations combined account for 1 to 6 percent of the variation in blood levels of dioxin among people.
• Living on contaminated soil, living in Midland/Saginaw, and contaminated household dust accounted for small (0.2 to 1 percent) variations in blood levels of dioxin.

The research team has maintained several avenues of communication with stakeholders, the community, and others.  A study website (www.umdioxin.org) contains updates and information on the conduct of the study and progress.

Questions

Kristi Skebo of NWF inquired why a woman of lower BMI who does not smoke would have a higher blood level of dioxin. Dr. Garabrant could not explain these associations, especially the different relationship between BMI and dioxin blood levels for men.

When asked if there were plans to follow this study with an investigation of health outcomes among residents of the Midland/Saginaw area, Dr. Garabrant replied that such an investigation is not planned but the subject has been debated in Midland and Saginaw.  He noted that, when health variables (e.g., age, sex, BMI, smoking, breastfeeding) were controlled in the study, little difference in blood dioxin levels were found, compared to other Michigan residents.

When asked if the study considered the consumption of garden vegetables by those gardening in contaminated soil, Dr. Garabrant replied that the consumption of vegetables regardless of where they are grown is associated with lower blood dioxin levels.  The study found that those who eat vegetables tend to eat less meat.

There was some discussion about participation by residents living on contaminated soil (> 1,000 ppt).  Dr. Garabrant explained that people responded favorably to the invitation to participate in the study.  One motivation for study participation may have been free testing of their property’s soil.  Each soil dioxin analytical test in the study cost over $1,000.  Michigan law states that a residence known to contain greater than 90 ppt dioxin is considered a facility.  When properties in the contaminated area are sold, testing for soil contamination is required if the dioxin levels are not known.  The study’s tests would satisfy this requirement.

Ray Vaughan inquired whether the study team had considered testing for other halogenated compounds or using bioassays. Dr. Garabrant responded that the study analyzed for dioxin, furan, and PCB congeners but not other halogenated (e.g., brominated) compounds. Also, the team considered using bioassays for economic reasons, but bioassays do not provide congener-specific data.

Craig Wardlaw inquired about the drivers for the serum dioxin levels and the approach to analyzing the effect of health variables. Dr. Garabrant replied that a multi-variate analysis, controlling for health factors, was performed.  The research team is also conducting a regression analysis focused on the end of the distribution.

Gary Gulezian asked about the absolute risk of dioxin exposure, in terms of lifetime cancer risk, of Midland/Saginaw residents, compared to the general population.  Dr. Garabrant responded that a cancer risk for Midland/Saginaw residents has not been calculated, although Dow is interested in such calculations.  The serum dioxin levels found in the study were virtually identical to the medians of serum dioxin levels for the US population in NHANES.  However, he noted that people who garden in heavily contaminated soil in Midland/Saginaw have an appreciable risk.

Lin Kaatz Chary asked if there has been any consideration of a follow-up study on offspring of breastfeeding women in the area.  Dr. Garabrant replied that the non-anomalous blood levels found in the study do not warrant a health effects study of residents in the area.  He also noted that it is quite expensive to conduct such a study.

There was some discussion of the outcome or next steps as a result of the study’s findings – for example, whether clean-up is needed.  Dr. Garabrant replied that the results provide a factual basis for moving forward.  Prior to the study, residents were worried about letting their children play in contaminated soil.  The results reinforced policy in Michigan, such as advising against consumption of contaminated fish.  By providing facts, the study also assisted the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in determining the appropriate policy for remediating the river.

SOLEC Conference Summary  

James McKenzie announced changes in the afternoon’s agenda to accommodate speakers’ schedules.  Most notably, the presentation by Luke Trip was cancelled because Luke was unable to attend the meeting. 

Lin Kaatz Chary provided a summary of a SOLEC workshop held on November 3, 2006, entitled Laying the Foundation for a Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network.  The goal of the workshop was to develop a plan for establishing a Green Chemistry network in the Great Lakes.  Workshop participants expressed their views on the need for a Great Lakes Green Chemistry network.  Keynote speakers at the workshop included Dr. John Warner, Director of the Center for Green Chemistry at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and Dr. Berkeley Cue of the American Chemistry Society Green Chemistry Institute.  

Recommendations resulting from the workshop included:

• Create a partnership between academia, industry, government, and NGOs.
• Create an “Associates Degree in Green Chemistry Technologies”.
• Create a Great Lakes Green Chemistry Research Network.
• Create a Great Lakes Green Chemistry Industrial Sabbatical Program.
• Create “niche Green Chemistry Scholarships”.

Lin provided examples of existing consortia that may be able to provide a home for a new Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network.  These existing consortia included the Canadian Green Chemistry Network, New England Green Chemistry Consortium (NEGCC), Green Chemistry in Commerce Council (GC3), and the Great Lakes Regional Pollution Prevention Roundtable (GLRPPR). 

Existing foundations for building a Great Lakes regional Green Chemistry consortium include a Michigan Green Chemistry directive that was recently signed by Governor Granholm, a west Michigan regional sustainable manufacturing initiative, and federal Green Chemistry legislation that has been introduced to Congress. 

Proposed next steps are to create an interim website to house resources and share information, and to hold teleconferences with interested parties to continue workshop discussions and explore future directions.  An ad hoc volunteer coordinating workgroup has been formed with representatives from industry, academia, environmental groups, and government.  This coordinating workgroup included members of the GLBTS Integration Workgroup. 

Lin noted that there was strong agreement among workshop participants for a Great Lakes Green Chemistry network, particularly with a focus on education.  Rachel Heckl commented that the binational component of such a network is important, which is why the issue was brought to the GLBTS. 

The Integration Workgroup discussed how a potential Great Lakes Green Chemistry network fits into the future agenda of the GLBTS.  Lin noted that Green Chemistry involves engaging college chemistry departments in issues of society and products made for society; such engagement will require support from national agencies. 

Ted Smith, who is on the steering committee for GLRPPR, offered to enlist GLRPPR’s support for a Great Lakes Green Chemistry network. 

Following a lunch break, James introduced Ted Smith and Melissa Hulting of US EPA GLNPO.  Melissa provided a summary of the PBT breakout session held on the second day of SOLEC in November 2006.  Three presentations were given during the session:  Henry Anderson discussed the health effects of PBTs; Alan Waffle discussed the remaining sources and pathways of PBTs; and Derek Muir described a project to develop screening and prioritization of new PBTs. 

Melissa Hulting
Melissa presented an overview of Derek Muir’s presentation.  Highlights of his presentation are as follows:

• Dr. Muir stressed the importance of scientific judgment to assess risk.
• Appropriate analysis standards are needed for new chemicals to confirm identification of new chemicals.
• New PBTs are more consumer product related, and efforts may be needed to track indicators in different media.
• Dr. Muir proposed future directions for addressing new PBTs.

Ted Smith
Ted described another SOLEC session, titled Non-Persistent Substances of Continuous Release.  Ted described the substances of focus for this session as “known unknowns”.  Highlights of this session, which included three presentations, are as follows:

• Data gaps preclude the development of indicators for these substances.
• Development of a screening methodology is needed.
• Effects research and environmental monitoring are needed.

The presenters also suggested maintaining awareness of research and policy efforts as they evolve, and possibly forming an informal or ad-hoc group to monitor non-persistent substances of continuous release.

Questions

Following the panelists’ presentations, several questions were posed by the audience. Dale Phenicie commented that a SOLEC committee meeting will be held in the near future to analyze what was learned and where to go.  Dale was not certain of the best forum for addressing emerging substances, but he noted that information on the subject is available.  There are broad categories of substances (e.g., personal care products, pharmaceuticals, musks), but substances of concern are smaller groups. CGLI has attempted to attract interested parties, such as companies who have registered chemicals and are interested in selling them in commerce.  Dale suggested that companies with data on emerging substances need to be engaged; considerable testing is required for substances to be registered.  He also suggested that the first step should be addressing the process used to answer questions about emerging substances. 

Melissa Hulting commented that wastewater treatment plants monitor for some substances, as required by regulations, but monitoring results beyond those required by regulation are often not released because it causes a public perception problem.  As a result, there may be some barriers to obtaining monitoring data. 

Dave Macarus suggested that the cumulative risk of several chemicals may pose a problem.  Biological monitoring may indicate the health risk of exposure to a mixture of substances. 

George Kuper commented on SOLEC and suggested that an action item for the Integration Workgroup is to determine a process for bringing stakeholders into SOLEC.  Danny Epstein also commented on the organization of SOLEC’s agenda and proposed that the GLBTS be more engaged in planning SOLEC. 

John Jackson of Great Lakes United commented that SOLEC process issues should be addressed by the Binational Executive Committee (BEC) and GLBTS stakeholders should address how work from SOLEC affects the GLBTS.

Lin Kaatz Chary observed that participation by NGOs was low at SOLEC because of their inability to afford the registration fees and few opportunities to participate, unlike meetings held by the IJC.  Lin suggested that SOLEC is not perceived as welcoming or accessible for NGOs.

Melissa Hulting invited feedback on SOLEC and asked that comments be sent to Paul Bertram (bertram.paul@epa.gov) and Paul Horvatin (horvatin.paul@epa.gov).

Canadian Environmental Protection Act Review of Domestic Substances List

Nicole Davidson, Unit Head of EC’s Categorization Unit, Emerging Substances Division, presented an update of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) Domestic Substances List (DSL) post-categorization and its relevance to the GLBTS.  Nicole presented an overview of the DSL categorization results at the May 18, 2006, Integration Workgroup meeting.

CEPA (1999) required the Ministers of Environment and Health to categorize the 23,000 substances on the DSL by September 14, 2006. It took seven years to undertake the process, which was completed by the required date. An announcement on the use of the DSL is expected from the Canadian government. EC has compact discs available containing lists of substances and information used to make the categorization decision.

Nicole presented the results of the categorization from a human health and ecological perspective.  Approximately 700 substances are categorized as having a high likelihood of human exposure and persisting or bioaccumulating in the body. Approximately 4,300 substances were identified as requiring further action, including assessing the degree of hazard/risk, updating the list of substances in commerce in Canada, and continuing risk assessment and risk management activities. 

A notice was issued in the Canada Gazette on March 4, 2006, regarding ~500 substances identified as priorities for action. The notice required Canadian companies who manufactured or imported >100 kg of the listed substances in 2005 to respond and report information. As a result of this notice, EC identified 150 substances as not being in commercial use, 45 as being already managed, 75 as having existing action plans or sector approaches, and 200 substances as being priorities for further action. The list of 200 substances identified for further action has not yet been released.

Key outcomes of the categorization include:

• Some substances can proceed immediately to risk assessment.
• Other substances require additional data generation to reduce uncertainty in their categorization decision.
• New research needs to be conducted, particularly in the area of environmental monitoring, and model development.
• Progress from international programs will continue to be taken into consideration (many substances are imported into Canada), so as not to duplicate efforts.

Questions

Danny Epstein inquired whether existing data are spatially resolved and substances of concern to the Great Lakes Basin could be identified.  Nicole explained that EC is attempting to identify stakeholders associated with the priority substances, including companies and industry sectors.

Ray Vaughan inquired whether EC has challenged the academic community to develop analytical methods for substances.  Nicole replied that EC has been communicating with the research community and plans to engage industry as well.

PCB Software - Financial Analysis of PCB Transformer Phaseouts

Deborah E. Savage, EMA Research & Information Center (EMARIC), presented a review of a newly developed PCB software tool which analyzes the costs of phasing out PCB transformers, and a case study describing one company’s analysis of a PCB transformer.  Development of the software was funded by US EPA under a grant to Tellus Institute and subcontractor EMARIC.  The goal of the project was to help firms understand the true costs and savings associated with operating PCB transformers vs. phasing them out.

The case study is a hypothetical example based on factual events and data.  The case study company, Chimanco, is a mid-sized manufacturer with a number of on-site electrical transformers that contain PCBs.  The analysis considered one 1,000 KVA power transformer that was critical to operations, and which contained 400 gallons of fluid and 1,000 ppm PCBs.  The analysis considered the following scenarios:

1. Keeping the current PCB-containing transformer.
2. Replacing the current transformer with a non-PCB transformer.
3. Retrofilling the current PCB-containing transformer with non-PCB fluid.
4. A dielectric fluid spill (50 gallons).
5. A transformer fire with dispersal of smoke and soot.

The case study results, which are heavily dependent upon the case study assumptions, showed that the retrofill option was financially justified in the spill scenario, and the replace and retrofill options were financially justified in the fire scenario.  The results also identified major cost drivers.

The PCB software tool enables financial assessment of the “Keep,” “Replace,” and “Retrofill” options by calculating the net present value (NPV) and discounted payback of each option.  The tool includes lists of potentially relevant costs for each scenario, allows the user to input cost data, and identifies major cost drivers.

The tool uses Microsoft Excel, version 2002, and includes a map and buttons for easy navigation.  Help text is instantly available within the tool.  The current version, Beta 10, is being reviewed by the project contributors, and after being finalized, the analysis tool will be made publicly available by US EPA.  Deb provided a demonstration of the software tool, explaining the various features of the tool.

Questions

Following the presentation, Ken De requested a copy of the tool to distribute for testing by companies with high-level PCB transformers.  The next beta version will be available from Tony Martig of US EPA. 

The group discussed the usefulness of the tool and mechanisms for distribution to potential users.  Dale Phenicie congratulated Deb for completing the software tool, which he perceived as useful and understandable.  He commented that it has been difficult in the past for engineers to obtain the justification needed by their firms for new capital purchases (e.g., to replace operating PCB transformers).  Gary inquired whether the tool needed additional information, such as potential risks involved in owning and operating a PCB transformer.  Dale felt that the tool was sufficient as is, and no additional information was needed.  Deb noted that the tool uses typical scenarios rather than catastrophic, although catastrophic examples from the literature could be added, with more effort.

Tony Martig suggested that the tool could be distributed via the Internet, available by download, as well as through trade associations, press release, and word-of-mouth.  Deb commented that web downloads have been successful in the past; this option also allows tracking the identity of users and sending follow-up information.

Green Chemistry Discussion

In place of Luke Trip’s presentation on integrating the GLBTS and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) program directions, James McKenzie announced that the time would be used to return to a discussion of the role of the GLBTS in promoting a Great Lakes Green Chemistry network.

Lin Kaatz Chary invited discussion on the potential role of the GLBTS in establishing a Great Lakes Green Chemistry network.  Danny Epstein felt that the GLBTS would support Green Chemistry as a strategy, but that the onus was on the academic community to succeed in developing a Green Chemistry network.  Danny proposed two scenarios in which Green Chemistry might be included in the GLBTS:

1. In considering new substances under the existing mandate of the GLBTS, and
2. In adopting recommendations of the GLWQA review, to the extent that Green Chemistry is part of those recommendations.

Danny suggested that the forum for the GLBTS to consider Green Chemistry is the committee planning for the 10th anniversary workshop in May 2007, and any potential role for Green Chemistry will be defined as the future structure of the GLBTS is defined in the 10-year workshop.  Gary Gulezian agreed that Green Chemistry does not necessarily fit within the current model of the GLBTS. 

Edwina Lopes of EC noted that the new substances notification program, as part of the CEPA DSL post-categorization process, indirectly promotes Green Chemistry because industry understands that new substances must meet with regulatory approval.  Edwina also noted that the new substances notification program is tiered based on use of a substance, which has had an impact on industry bringing new substances to market.  It was not clear how Green Chemistry fits into the risk management aspect of DSL post-categorization activities; however, Green Chemistry can be promoted among industry sectors.  Ted Smith commented that the pre-manufacturing notice (PMN) process required in the US under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) allows an expedited review for companies who use pollution prevention (P2) in the design process.  Ray Vaughan suggested that these Canadian and US programs more formally embrace Green Chemistry and waive requirements for companies who use Green Chemistry in the manufacturing process, as an impetus to advance Green Chemistry.  It was noted that this would require a change in current regulations, which can be an extensive and complicated process. 

Ted Smith suggested that the role of the GLBTS in establishing a Great Lakes Green Chemistry network will become clearer as the 10th anniversary workshop approaches.  He commented that the idea of a Great Lakes Green Chemistry network makes sense, and that there are existing frameworks that would be able to support it.  For example, GLRPPR would be a logical home for a Great Lakes Green Chemistry network.  He also noted that US EPA has made investments in Green Chemistry.  Gary Gulezian added to Ted’s comments, noting that the P2 mandate of GLNPO is broader than the GLBTS substances and would include Green Chemistry. 

Lin Kaatz Chary commented that the handling of PCBs remediated from contaminated sites is a Green Chemistry issue, as well as a P2 issue.  She suggested that policy is the place to encourage Green Chemistry. 

Sue Brauer of US EPA commented that an initiative such as a Great Lakes Green Chemistry network is typically undertaken by the US federal government, for example by Executive Order.  She suggested that a Green Chemistry mandate could be similar to the US government’s requirement to purchase environmentally friendly products.  If Green Chemistry is tied to the GLBTS, Sue suggested that a safer alternative than the naphthalene-based oils that are currently preferred for replacing PCB transformer oil be found.   

The group discussed the term “Green Chemistry.”  While some considered it a broad term, others likened it to a philosophy, method, or way of doing business. Lin stated that 12 specific principles define Green Chemistry and there are criteria for those who practice it. Lin felt that it was important to understand the Green Chemistry concept because it is broader than a label or a business practice.

Agenda Planning

Integration Workgroup members proposed the following potential agenda topics for the next meeting:

1. PCB Replacement efforts by USWAG members, given by Jim Roewer
2. Planning for the May 2007 workshop, by the 10-year anniversary workshop planning committee
3. Alternatives to removing contaminated sediments (other than dredging) at US and Canadian AoCs, and issues related to the Great Lakes Legacy Act
   1. Discussion of this topic may be more appropriate at another meeting, leading to the May 2007 workshop
4. Derek Muir’s new PBT screening work
5. Using effect-directed analysis as an alternative method of evaluating toxics in the environment

There was a suggestion to limit the number of presentations at the next meetings and allow sufficient time for discussion of agenda topics.

Concluding Remarks

Gary Gulezian thanked participants for a useful and productive meeting. Danny Epstein observed a need to better integrate GLBTS and Lake Superior efforts and to leverage those efforts, particularly with work that remains to be done with respect to mercury and dioxin. He proposed that this be accomplished through the GLBTS workgroup co-chairs. 

Next Meeting

The next GLBTS Integration Workgroup meeting is scheduled for February 21, 2007, in Windsor, Ontario.

December 7, 2006, Stakeholder Forum Attendees

Todd Abel	Chlorine Chemistry Council
David Ailor	National Oilseed Producers Association
Holly Arrigoni	US EPA Region 5
Milena Avramovic	Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Bob Bailey	Bailey Associates
Mike Berndt	Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Sue Brauer	US EPA Region 5
Alexis Cain	US EPA Region 5
Ken De	Environment Canada
Jon Dettling	Great Lakes Commission
Chris Dindagy	SLVS
David Dunlap	Chlorine Institute
Jack Dutra	Mid America CropLife Association
Curtis Englot	Environment Canada
Danny Epstein	Environment Canada
P.L. Fan	American Dental Association
John Gilkeson	Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Bruce Gillies	Environment Canada
Doug Green	DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP
Gary Gulezian	US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Rachel Heckl	Great Lakes United
Stephen Hoffman	US EPA
Melissa Hulting	US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
John Jackson	Great Lakes United
Deb Jacobson	IL Waste Management & Research Center/IL Department of Natural Resources
Dawn Jensen	ERCO Worldwide
Allan Jones	Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council
Lin Kaatz Chary	Northwest Indiana Toxics Action Project/Great Lakes United
George H. Kuper	Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI)
Marie-Helene Lacasse	Environment Canada
Dennis Leonard	Detroit Edison
Victor Li	Environment Canada
Carri Lohse-Hanson	Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Edwina Lopes	Environment Canada
Jianmin Ma	Environment Canada
David Macarus	US EPA Region 5
Tony Martig	US EPA Region 5
John Mayes	Ontario Ministry of the Environment
John McDonald	International Joint Commission
James McKenzie	McKenzieParis Inc.
Shawn Michajluk	Environment Canada
Dave Michaud	WE Energies
Tricia Mitchell	Environment Canada
Elizabeth Murphy	US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Todd Nettesheim	US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Erin Newman	US EPA
Tracey Norberg	Rubber Manufacturers Association
Tom Nowicki	Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Ian Orchard	Environment Canada
Marta Panero	New York Academy of Sciences
Dale Phenicie	Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI)
Kevin Pylka	U.S. Steel Keewatin Taconite
Steve Risotto	Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA)
Jim Roewer	USWAG
Steve Rosenthal	US EPA Region 5
Julie Schroeder	Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Lorraine Seed	Health Canada
Kristi Skebo	National Wildlife Federation
Ted Smith	US EPA Region 5
Evelyn Strader	Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI)
Cara Sweeney	Clean Air Foundation
Kate Taillon	Environment Canada
Sharon Thieszen	Northshore Sanitary District
Amy Thomas	Battelle
Tom Tseng	Environment Canada
Eric Uram	Headwater Consulting
Raymond Vaughan	New York State Attorney General’s Office
Alan Waffle	Environment Canada
Craig Wardlaw	Headwater Environmental Services
E. Marie Wines	US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Jessica Winter	US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Anita Wong	Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Joan Woodyard	Weston
Cindy Yang	Environment Canada

 

Local Navigation

• Great Lakes Home
• Basic Information
• Interagency Task Force
• Interested Parties
• US Agencies
• States
• Canada
• Tribal Nations
• Others
• Federal Programs
• Legacy Act
• Policies & Strategies
• Monitoring & Indicators
• Ecosystems
• Toxics Reduction & Pollution Prevention
• Funding

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us