![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
GLBTS Links
Great Lakes
Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholders Forum, Windsor, Ontario
December 16, 2003
Hyatt Regency Chicago
Minutes
Welcome and Introductions
Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), began the meeting by noting the theme of this Stakeholder Forum: "Global Toxics - No Borders." He commented that multiple presentations would address this theme. Gary also noted that the meeting would include a report of progress by the workgroups and that a draft Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) 2003 progress report was available at the back of the room. Gary invited comments on the draft report, which can be sent to Amy Thomas (thomasa@battelle.org). Following Gary’s introduction, Danny Epstein, Regional Director, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada (EC), welcomed the audience, commenting that the Great Lakes are seen as a jewel, not just in North America, but across the globe.
Key Note Address: Global POPs and Mercury
James McKenzie, facilitator for the meeting, introduced Paul Whylie, Project Manager for the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) Chemicals Program, based in Geneva, Switzerland. Mr. Whylie presented information on global toxics and the relevance to the GLBTS. His slides addressed:
- What are the priority persistent toxic substance (PTS) chemicals globally and what are those for North America?
- How do these compare?
- Does the GLBTS need to further consider the global picture?
- UNEP findings and activities;
- Overview of National Implementation Plans;
- UNEP Global Mercury Assessment;
- POPs Global Monitoring Program.
Mr. Whylie discussed PTS characteristics, barriers to solutions, and regions of assessment. He discussed how UNEP had assessed PTS priorities, both globally and for North America, by defining separate global regions, each with a coordinator who chose five reputable scientists to perform an assessment of priorities. Globally, PCBs came out as a very high priority, signifying a "classic POP." While there are many similarities between global and North American priorities, some discrepancies exist. For example, atrazine, PBDEs, and PFOS were high North American priorities but not high in a global UNEP assessment. Mr. Whylie also commented that many models do not take into consideration tropical climates or conditions. He called for:
- An update of a Regionally Based Assessment (RBA) for PTS chemicals,
- Filling of data gaps,
- Assessment of open burning as a source of PTS,
- Creation of a resource center for new PTS chemicals,
- A global strategy for increasing public awareness,
- Production of a global source profile,
- Establishment of a global strategy for technology transfer,
- Development of capacities for determining the long range transport of PTS.
Mr Whylie also urged the GLBTS, a global leader in reducing POPs, to make links to other lake regions around the globe and to think globally. This means carrying messages, methodologies, successes, and lessons learned to those who have not been as successful.
Mr. Whylie’s presentation led to a series of questions and discussion on issues ranging from the significance of data gaps to PTS priorities for children.
Historical Effects of Dioxins on Lake Ontario Lake Trout Populations
James McKenzie introduced the second speaker on the agenda, Dr. Phillip Cook of the US EPA Duluth Laboratory. Dr. Cook focused on the ecological effects of dioxin exposure in the Great Lakes, specifically in Lake Ontario lake trout. He noted the use of models and the toxicity equivalence approach in dioxin science, describing it as "using data to tell a story."
Dr. Cook described historical trends in lake trout populations in the Great Lakes, noting high levels of commercial catch early in the century declining to extirpation by the 1960's in all Great Lakes but Lake Ontario. Populations returned in the 1970's due to stocking, but no reproduction occurred because fry died from blue-sac disease. Beginning in 1986, increasing numbers of sac fry were observed, and in 1995, the first evidence of survival to year-old lake trout was seen. Dr. Cook commented that great improvements in dioxin levels have been made since the 1970's and lake trout populations have been restored.
Dr. Cook described how 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) causes blue-sac disease (so named for a bluish sac observed on fry) and how lake trout are very sensitive to TCDD, compared to other aquatic species. He noted that non-chemical stressors also affect lake trout populations. Dr. Cook discussed issues such as choice of mammalian versus fish toxicity factors for estimating trout risk, as well as many other scientific issues associated with estimating dioxin effects over time. Overall, Dr. Cook’s work has shown that lake trout extirpation by 1960 and the lack of natural reproduction until about 1985 can be attributed to dioxin toxicity.
The discussion following Dr. Cook’s presentation included questions as to whether his findings were similar for other lakes, for other fish in Lake Ontario (e.g., salmon), and the potential sources of dioxin to Lake Ontario. Dr. Cook responded that the findings are similar for other Great Lakes and that, while there are no data on levels of dioxin in salmon, they may be expected to be the same as the levels in Lake Ontario rainbow trout (i.e, 5 times less sensitive than lake trout). Dr. Cook emphasized the effect of varying sensitivities among species, noting that PCBs are the main problem for bald eagles, rather than dioxins. He had no firm evidence of dioxin sources but proposed that potential sources may have been chlorophenol production in the 1940's to 1960's and possibly hexachlorobenzene production.
Reporting on the Strategy
The GLBTS workgroup leaders for PCBs, dioxin, HCB/B(a)P, mercury, and long range transport each gave a progress update, first reviewing their respective challenge goal(s) and then reporting on workgroup activity and reduction progress. The report given by each workgroup leader is summarized below.
PCB Challenge
Tony Martig of US EPA provided an update for the PCB Workgroup. He reported an 86 percent reduction in PCBs on the Canadian side, versus the challenge goal of 90 percent. On the U.S. side, the data are less certain – the remaining PCB transformers in the U.S. may range from 20,000 to 129,000. Tony presented the workgroup’s ongoing reduction activities, outreach efforts, and research. These include outreach and recognition programs for industry to remove PCB-containing equipment. Tony also discussed barriers and challenges to further progress, such as the voluntary nature of PCB equipment removal commitments.
Dioxin Challenge
Erin Newman of US EPA provided an update for the Dioxin
Workgroup. She reported an 83 percent reduction for Canada, compared
to the challenge goal of a 90 percent reduction, and a 77 percent
reduction in total releases within the U.S., meeting the challenge
goal of a 75 percent reduction. Erin reviewed major sources of
dioxin emissions and presented monitoring data from Canada’s
National Air Pollution Surveillance network (NAPS). She gave an
historical overview of workgroup efforts and the current focus of
efforts, which includes finalizing the workgroup’s new work plan.
Erin also provided a brief update on the accomplishments of the Burn
Barrel Subgroup of the Dioxin Workgroup. The subgroup maintains a
web site at www.openburning.org
.
B(a)P/HCB Challenge
Steve Rosenthal of US EPA provided an update for the B(a)P/HCB Workgroup. He reported an approximate 62 percent reduction in HCB and 45 percent reduction in B(a)P since 1988 for Canada, compared to the challenge goal of a 90 percent reduction in both HCB and B(a)P. For the U.S., Steve reported an approximate 90 percent reduction in HCB (nationally) from chlorinated solvents and pesticide manufacturing, a 65 percent reduction in B(a)P (in the Great Lakes) from coke ovens, and a greater than 90 percent reduction in B(a)P (in the Great Lakes) from primary aluminum reduction plants and petroleum refineries.
Steve discussed primary source sectors and actions related to those sectors in the U.S. and Canada. For example, by educating consumers, the "Burn it Smart!" campaign is impacting B(a)P releases from residential wood combustion in Ontario. After reviewing known sources, Steve presented data on B(a)P in particulate phase air from the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) that seem to indicate that there are unknown sources of B(a)P contributing to the lack of a corresponding decrease in air levels.
Mercury Challenge
Bob Krauel of Environment Canada provided an update for the Mercury Workgroup. Bob reported an approximate 83 percent reduction in mercury releases in Canada, compared to the challenge goal of a 90 percent reduction. Best estimates for progress in the U.S. are a 40 percent reduction in mercury emissions and a 50 percent reduction in mercury use, compared to the U.S. challenge of reducing mercury use and emissions by 50 percent. Bob presented sources of mercury releases in Ontario and the U.S. and sources of mercury use in the U.S. He discussed the December 15, 2003, EPA proposal for reducing mercury emissions from electric utilities. The proposal includes two alternatives to reduce mercury emissions: using Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT) or a market-based "cap-and-trade" program. Bob also discussed the chlor-alkali, dental, auto scrap, and other sectors, and mercury reduction efforts underway in each.
Long Range Transport Challenge
Todd Nettesheim of US EPA provided an update on progress made toward the long range transport challenge. Todd reviewed some of the recent science related to long range transport. Current monitoring research indicates that global mercury cycling is much more dynamic than previously known. Todd discussed the Long Range Transport Workshop held in September 2003 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, sponsored by the GLBTS, US EPA, EC, Delta Institute, International Joint Commission, and Commission for Environmental Cooperation. He also reported on emission inventory, monitoring, and modeling activities and actions discussed at the workshop. Finally, Todd presented the next steps for the workgroup, which include preparing a final workshop report.
Concluding Remarks
James McKenzie called on Danny Epstein and Gary Gulezian to conclude the morning plenary session. Danny commented that, although a global perspective was encouraged this morning, the need to continue the work of the U.S. and Canada in the Great Lakes remains. He reminded the audience of the U.S. and Canada’s shared responsibility to protect the jewel that is the Great Lakes. Danny recognized the participation of his staff and thanked them for their efforts on an ongoing basis. He noted, in particular, Alan Waffle’s work in coordinating the work of the two countries and organizing GLBTS meetings. Danny extended his recognition to the efforts of all in attendance and wished everyone a happy new year.
Gary in turn recognized the efforts of his own staff, thanking them for their dedication. He noted that not all US EPA participants are from his office, the Great Lakes National Program Office. Gary wished everyone a happy holiday season and reminded them to pick up a copy of the draft GLBTS 2003 progress report, available at the back of the room.
The morning plenary session was followed by substance-specific workgroup break-out sessions in the afternoon. An Integration Workgroup meeting followed on December 17, 2003.
Next Meeting
The next Stakeholder Forum is scheduled for May 19, 2004, in Toronto.
Attendees
|
Todd Abel |
Chlorine Chemistry Council American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute US EPA Bailey Associates Ispat Inland Inc Syngenta Crop Protection Ministry of the Environment OSRAM Slyvania Rubber Manufacturers Association US EPA Region 5 TetraTech LRC/RPI US EPA Region 5 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Chiefs of Ontario Environment Canada—National Office of Pollution Prevention Xcel Energy Environment Canada Environment Canada Environmental Health Consulting, Inc. Solutia Inc. The Chlorine Institute The Cadmus Group Severn Trent Laboratories Environment Canada US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office Pollution Probe Environment Canada Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance Piper Rudnick LLP US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office US EPA Environment Canada Contractor US EPA Region 5 Association of Municipal Recycling Coordinators Great Lakes United & Citizens’ Network on Waste Management Environment Canada WE Energies Council of Great Lakes Industries US EPA General Scrap AEP Detroit Edison US EPA SUNPRO University of Illinois at Chicago National Wildlife Federation Environment Canada, Ontario Region Canadian Consulate General US EPA Office of Strategic Environmental Analysis US EPA International Joint Commission Environment Canada McKenzieParis Inc. Battelle Environment Canada WE Energy Corporation Environmental Health Consulting, Inc. US Army Northern Regional Environmental Office US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office US EPA Delta Institute Council of Great Lakes Industries USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office Environment Canada Consumers Energy Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance University of Illinois-Chicago USWAG US EPA Region 5 Environment Canada, Ontario Region US EPA Region 5 Ontario Dental Association US EPA Health Canada Tellus Institute Environment Canada Environment Canada US EPA Region 5 US EPA Office of Solid Waste Naval Institute for Dental and Biomedical Research Council of Great Lakes Industries Battelle Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Environment Canada Gas Technology Institute Environment Canada Illinois EPA Environment Canada Headwater Environmental Ipsco Inc. US EPA Region 5 United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) US EPA Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention Environment Canada Battelle Environment Canada |