GLBTS Links

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholders Forum, Windsor, Ontario

December 17, 2003
Hyatt Regency Chicago
Minutes

Welcome, Introductions and Stakeholder Activity Updates

James McKenzie began the meeting by noting that December 17^th is the 100^th anniversary of the first flight, for which all participants traveling by air were grateful. Danny Epstein, Regional Director of the Environmental Protection Branch of Environment Canada (EC), introduced two new faces to the group: Jennifer McKay, of EC, who is taking over for Susan Nameth in representing the Binational Executive Committee (BEC), and Adel Shalaby, Regional Director for Health Canada. Danny also announced the political leadership transition in Canada and potential impacts on the scope and direction of EC, though the minister of EC will remain the same. Gary Gulezian, Director of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office, welcomed the group to the meeting and reported that US EPA has a new Administrator, Mike Levitt, the former Governor of Utah, and that his directions and priorities will be forthcoming. Gary noted that the new Administrator expressed his collaborative approach in an introductory speech to US EPA employees. Gary also pointed out a newcomer to the group, Bob Springer, Director of the US EPA Office of Solid Waste.

Following Danny and Gary’s introductory remarks, participants were asked to introduce themselves and report any recent news from their organizations. During the round of self-introductions, Bob Springer mentioned US EPA efforts in Washington related to GLBTS efforts, including the Resource Conservation Challenge, a Product Stewardship effort, and a national program on scrap tires. John Jackson of Great Lakes United (GLU) announced that Margaret Wooster, a regular participant of GLBTS meetings in the past, is stepping down as executive director of GLU. He also announced that GLU is hosting a workshop in April in Toronto on Extended Producer Responsibility, with a focus on municipalities.

Adel Shalaby of Health Canada introduced himself and cited the relevance of Health Canada’s Safe Environments program to the GLBTS.

Frank Anscombe of US EPA provided an update on a fugitive emissions study being conducted by the Chlorine Chemistry Council (CCC) to quantify mercury emissions in a chlor-alkali plant. Frank also announced that the CCC is promoting the transfer of technology to reduce mercury releases at chlor-alkali plants across the globe.

Abby Corso reported on work conducted by the Delta Institute, including support for the Long Range Transport Workshop held in Ann Arbor in September 2003.

Allan Jones of the Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee (C4) requested that the registration process for GLBTS meetings be streamlined (e.g., yes or no), in particular for regular attendees to Integration Workgroup meetings.

Long Range Transport Workshop Outcomes

S. Venkatesh of EC reported on the outcomes of the September 2003 Long Range Transport Workshop in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He discussed the flow of pollutants into and out of North America from/to other continents. He described the September 2003 Long Range Transport Workshop, organized as a further step under the GLBTS to work with international experts to characterize and ultimately reduce releases of Level 1 substances. Issues discussed at the workshop included emissions inventory actions, monitoring actions, modeling actions, and next steps. Venkatesh presented some recent research results that were discussed at the workshop, for example, global-scale gridded estimates of the transfer efficiency of PCBs to the Great Lakes. Workshop participants drafted an "Ann Arbor Statement," [PDF 477 13pps] which presents recommendations for sustaining and expanding research on long range transport of air toxics to the Great Lakes, and the statement will be revised with comments that have been received. A final workshop report is also expected to be prepared in early 2004. Venkatesh also mentioned Canada’s new Global Pesticides Release Database (GloPeRD), which is available at http://www.msc.ec.gc.ca/data/gloperd/ .

In the question and answer phase of the presentation, Venkatesh confirmed that the models account for atmospheric reactivity and that, with sufficient resolution, they can estimate the Great Lakes as both receptor and source. Venkatesh also fielded questions concerning the flow of chemicals into and out of the Great Lakes, and actions needed in addition to emission inventories and modeling.

Continental Modeling of GLBTS Substances to the Great Lakes

Dr. Matthew MacLeod of the US Department of Energy Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory presented information on relative in-basin versus out-of-basin sources of some Level 1 substances to the Great Lakes. Dr. MacLeod presented the results of his research that have recently been published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (Vol. 21, No. 8, pp. 1628-1637). He described continental-scale modeling of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), a case study of toxaphene fate and transport in North America, a measure of transport called the Great Lakes Transfer Efficiency (GLTE), and global modeling approaches for POPs. Dr. MacLeod also presented the expected focus of his work in 2004 related to the transport and deposition of Level 1 substances to the Great Lakes:

apply generic, North American and global fate modeling tools to the organic chemicals on the Level 1 substance list;

produce North American and global GLTE estimates; and

assemble mass budgets on North American or global scales where emission data is available.

The discussion following Dr. MacLeod’s presentation focused on the 15 million pounds of toxaphene remaining in North America, primarily in soils. It was noted that, as use declines in the Great Lakes, outside sources will begin to make more of a contribution to the Great Lakes, though episodic events remain important. It was also noted that research has predicted the approximate time to virtual elimination from toxaphene residues in soil.

Framework to Assess Management of GLBTS Level 1 Substances - An Update

Ted Smith of US EPA presented an update on the development of a framework for considering next steps in the GLBTS regarding current Level 1 substances. Ted presented a revised draft framework, explaining the revisions that had been made to the draft presented at the September 11, 2003, Integration Workgroup meeting. He presented examples of how the framework would be used for three Level 1 substances: alkyl-lead, mercury, and OCS. Finally, Ted described the anticipated next steps for the framework, which are to address any further concerns, brief the Binational Executive Committee (BEC) in January 2004, and once the approval of the BEC has been obtained, begin a process of review and assessment of Level 1 substances using the framework. Alan Waffle of EC added that there are a few administrative issues that the governments need to consider before the framework will begin to be implemented.

Dennis Leonard of Detroit Edison commented that the paper detailing the examples for alkyl-lead, mercury, and OCS (copies were provided at the back of the room) used different criteria in assessing exceedances for mercury and OCS. He suggested that consistent criteria be used for all Level 1 substances (e.g., state, provincial) and that the criteria be specific to the Great Lakes. Zoe Lipman felt that the example for mercury accurately illustrated the status of mercury–that is, many issues to consider and no obvious outcome. Zoe was also impressed with the revised draft of the framework, stating that it was a more rigorous and solid process than the first draft presented to the Integration Workgroup.

Danny Epstein stressed the need to consult monitoring and science experts in the Level 1 substance analyses, and he suggested that the strength of the framework will be its ability to influence work outside of the Integration Workgroup (e.g., to fill in data gaps where needed).

Gary Gulezian noted that the analyses require much interpretation and that the framework should not be seen as a dichotomous, mechanistic tool without room for judgment.

Dan O’Riordan of US EPA expressed concern about the meaning of "Refer to LaMP Process" (in the framework) because the LaMPs have limited resources. Ted clarified that this box indicates a cooperative effort between the LaMPs and GLBTS.

George Kuper of the Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI ) complemented the work done on the framework thus far. However, he was concerned that the level of comfort with the framework is not sufficient to begin implementing it.

Technology Diffusion

Dr. Tim Lindsay of the Illinois Waste Management Resource Center (WMRC) provided information on the pollution prevention (P2) approach to solving problems to help guide GLBTS outreach and sector pilot scale-up efforts. Dr. Lindsay discussed the advantages of P2, reasons for a slow adoption rate, innovation characteristics that affect the diffusion of P2, and stages in the adoption of an innovation, which he compared to the proliferation of cell phones over the past twenty years. Dr. Lindsay explained how traditional technology diffusion approaches, which attempt to solve problems with preconceived solutions, differ from WMRC’s approach, which is to analyze and investigate the problem before developing a solution. He described the need for companies to "test drive" P2 technologies before they are adopted. Dr. Lindsay presented WMRC’s current Accelerated Diffusion of P2 Technologies, or ADOP²T, initiative. One key activity of the ADOP²T initiative is a Binational Toxics Strategy Green Chemistry project with Koppers International in Stickney, Illinois.

Following the presentation, questions were directed to Dr. Lindsay concerning: the role of regulation in overcoming the "optional decision" barrier to P2, the cost component of P2 projects, and the scope of WMRC’s work. Dr. Lindsay responded that government-mandated P2 can cause problems, and he suggested that a better way to encourage P2 is to create a sense of urgency so that the option cannot be put off. It was noted that, in Canada, P2 is a means of complying with regulations. Dr. Lindsay explained that WMRC performs economic as well as technical evaluations and return-on-investment calculations for companies to decide whether a P2 project is feasible. Regarding the scope of WMRC’s work, Dr. Lindsay replied that WMRC’s projects are primarily limited to the state of Illinois, though every state has a P2 program. WMRC has done some work with local industry associations, but not with national associations, because P2 is implemented at the plant level.

Ted Smith of US EPA referred to a project which analyzed industrial boiler emissions and presented a packaged solution. He asked how this solution might be promoted. Dr. Lindsay replied that technical assistance in implementing the solution might be needed, rather than economic assistance (e.g., low-interest loans).

Danny Epstein commented that this discussion brings to mind Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) programs. ETV programs in both the U.S. and Canada encourage companies to adopt environmental technologies by demonstrating that such technologies are successful.

Substance Workgroup Reports

The substance workgroup co-chairs presented updates on the previous day’s workgroup sessions and cross-cutting issues and problems that may require the attention of the Integration Workgroup for resolution. Alexis Cain, the U.S. co-chair for the Mercury Workgroup, reported that fluorescent lighting was a major focus of the Mercury Workgroup session. Improving recycling is the primary means of reducing mercury releases from this sector because, while new lighting products have found limited applications for outdoor use, innovations in indoor lighting products are not expected for 10 years or more. Alexis also noted the need to address regulations that inadvertently create incentives not to recycle, and he announced an $800,000 grant to launch a project with a goal of doubling current recycling. The workgroup discussed dental amalgam and the U.S. Navy’s efforts to install amalgam separators in all dental units in the Navy. The workgroup learned about a voluntary program being undertaken by General Scrap in Manitoba to reduce mercury in scrap. Finally, the workgroup discussed a potential rulemaking for steel makers to implement clean scrap standards.

A joint Dioxin/PCB Workgroup session was held prior to the individual workgroup sessions. Tony Martig, the U.S. co-chair for the PCB Workgroup, explained that one-third of risks from dioxins and furans is from coplanar PCBs, not only from consumption of fish, but also from beef, dairy, and poultry, through deposition of atmospheric releases or past releases. Tony reported that the focus of the PCB Workgroup session was education and outreach efforts to reduce sources. Opportunities to reduce exposure include advisories or source reduction (e.g., phase-out of PCB equipment). Tony described the workgroup’s outreach effort that is attempting to take advantage of larger companies who have phased-out PCB equipment and who could act as mentors for other companies. The workgroup learned about a Tellus Institute study to be conducted in 2004 that will analyze the cost of removing PCB equipment. A presentation was also given to the PCB Workgroup on a source emission study to be conducted in 2004 that will analyze PCB releases in ambient air near electrical equipment. Tony also mentioned that the workgroup discussed possible funding sources for PCB phase-outs.

The Integration Workgroup identified funding as a cross-cutting workgroup issue for future Integration Workgroup consideration.

Steve Rosenthal, the U.S. co-chair for the HCB/B(a)P Workgroup, presented the results of the HCB/B(a)P Workgroup session, which included presentations on: the findings of Dale Phenicie’s investigation into current HCB levels in pesticide products, Canada’s "Burn It Smart!" campaign, vehicular emissions, Ontario’s scrap tire program, the status of the coke oven sector, and efforts by US EPA and the Rubber Manufacturers Association to reduce scrap tire piles in the U.S.

Steve reported that the uncertainty surrounding the amount of HCB emitted by pesticide application was nearly resolved, thanks to the work of Dale Phenicie. Dale found that there are approximately 900 pounds of HCB in pesticide products, a reduction of about 4,000 pounds from the amount of HCB previously thought to be contained in pesticides. Additional work is required to determine the amount of HCB emitted when HCB-containing pesticides are used. Gary Gulezian extended his thanks to Dale for his work.

The HCB/B(a)P Workgroup hopes to obtain funding for a program in the U.S. similar to the "Burn It Smart!" campaign in Canada. Reductions in B(a)P are expected from coke ovens in the U.S. due to US EPA regulations. The Integration Workgroup discussed the effectiveness of wood-stove changeout programs, proposed national targets for the use of scrap tires in the U.S., and the amount of B(a)P released from incineration of scrap tires.

Erin Newman, the U.S. co-chair for the Dioxin Workgroup, reported that information on exposure to coplanar PCBs through the food system was presented by Dwain Winters at the joint Dioxin/PCB Workgroup session. She suggested that the author of a National Academy of Sciences publication on the issue of dioxin exposures through the food chain might be a good speaker for a future GLBTS plenary session. At the Dioxin Workgroup session, Erin reported that two documents were finalized: the workgroup’s workplan and the Burn Barrel subgroup’s strategy. The workgroup also discussed poorly characterized sources. Erin noted that the Council of Great Lakes Industries offered to prepare an issue paper summarizing the available information on certain of these sources. The workgroup co-chairs will also be developing an issue paper. Erin reported that scrap tires and wood boilers will be discussed in the future with the HCB/B(a)P Workgroup, and they may possibly develop inventories for these sources. Finally, Erin requested that more time be allocated for workgroup sessions, particularly with the potential for multiple joint sessions with other workgroups, and that consideration be given to the possibility of States being involved in workgroup sessions by phone. She suggested that the workgroup reports during the morning plenary session (of the Stakeholder Forum) could be less frequent (e.g., once a year) and could possibly be replaced with a one-page fact sheet.

LaMP Crosswalk

Darryl Piekarz of Environment Canada presented possibilities for GLBTS engagement with the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP). Gary Gulezian explained that there was a meeting with the Lake Superior Task Force in Thunder Bay in early December to discuss coordination of the GLBTS and Lake Superior LaMP.

Darryl first described the Binational Program developed for Lake Superior to accelerate reductions beyond compliance, with a principle of zero discharge and an emphasis on P2. The Binational Program has a milestone of a 60% reduction in mercury by 2000, which Darryl said is believed to have been met. There are milestones for each Lake Superior LaMP pollutant (9 pollutants total), and an additional milestone of an 80% reduction in mercury by 2010. For example, there is a target of an 80% reduction in PCBs by 2005. Darryl explained that there is a need to find ways to accelerate reductions to meet the Lake Superior targets.

Darryl briefly described the crosswalk of GLBTS and LaMP opportunities that has been developed by representatives of both the GLBTS and the LaMPs. Darryl stated that the development of a PCB inventory is a high-priority for Lake Superior because there may not be sufficient information with which to evaluate the target for PCBs. Another high priority crosswalk opportunity relates to the dioxin goal. There has been outreach to communities regarding open burning but no alternatives provided. The Burn Barrel subgroup’s strategy, recently finalized, would bring pilot-scale improvement in infrastructure to replace open burning in the Lake Superior region and other Great Lakes regions.

Hazardous waste collections are another crosswalk area. While some cancelled pesticides have been collected, they continue to appear in Clean Sweeps, suggesting that additional pesticide collections are needed. However, government funding for Clean Sweeps has decreased. Darryl postulated whether CGLI, through its relationships with pesticide manufacturers, might be able to help in identifying stocks of old pesticides.

In regard to mercury reductions, Darryl commented that the Lake Superior Binational Program would like to demonstrate more energy conservation programs.

Darryl stated that 190 actions, for 9 chemicals that match the GLBTS substances, were identified for the Lake Superior LaMP. The Lake Superior LaMP is producing a fresh set of actions for 2005 and requests the assistance of the GLBTS in analyzing and updating its actions. It was noted that the linkage between the Lake Superior LaMP and the GLBTS is through the workgroups and that this coordination should continue. Danny proposed that the Integration Workgroup consider whether there is value added in meeting with the Lake Superior Task Force.

The next meeting of the Lake Superior Task Force is February 27, 2004, in Superior, Wisconsin.

Agenda Planning

Before considering potential agenda items for future meetings, the group discussed the frequency, location, and content of Integration Workgroup meetings. Danny would like the meetings to be held in a location that is most economical and effects the greatest participation (e.g., is easy for industry to attend, allows the most states to participate). George Kuper requested that consideration be given to avoid overlap with meetings related to mercury, such as the CEC Mercury meeting being held across the hall, concurrent with this meeting.

John Jackson advised that the Integration Workgroup revisit its role. He commented that, rather than providing interesting information, the meeting agenda should focus more on furthering the progress of the GLBTS (e.g., making decisions and recommendations), and he proposed that meetings be held less frequently unless they require specific decisions or input from the Integration Workgroup related to furthering the progress of the GLBTS. George agreed with John’s comments, adding that the debriefs from the workgroup leaders are the most useful information presented at the Integration Workgroup meetings. George also suggested that the meeting organizers, and perhaps the facilitator as well, consider the expected outcome of proposed agenda items before a presenter is invited to speak.

There was general agreement that the meeting organizers should attempt to focus the meeting presentations more closely on the direction and impact the topic has on the GLBTS by:

articulating how agenda items relate to the objective of the Integration Workgroup (e.g., by crafting the expected outcomes of agenda items more strategically),
allowing time for facilitated discussion to consider how the Integration Workgroup can use the information presented to further the goals of the GLBTS,
seeking feedback from workgroup members on proposed agenda items, and
providing a written record of meetings to document what has been done and serve as a reminder for important action items.

The workgroup produced the following list of potential agenda items for the next Integration Workgroup meeting:

Long range transport
- Revisit first principles
- Source apportionment
  - Where to extend reach?
  - How does it impact the direction of the GLBTS?
Low interest financial tools/loans
PBTs in the food system
- Monitoring/why concern
- Pathway interventions
- Speaker from FDA or Health Canada
Follow-up on Reassessment Framework - implementation
- Feedback from the BEC
Great Lakes restoration agenda
- Linkages; investments (where?)
Joining the GLBTS with other international initiatives
Update on GLBTS sector pilot outreach efforts

In light of the final discussion, the Integration Workgroup meeting scheduled for February 24, 2004, has been postponed. The next Stakeholder Forum and Integration Workgroup meeting are being planned for May 19 and 20, 2004, in Toronto.

Attendees

Todd Abel
David Ailor
Frank Anscombe
Bob Bailey
Tom Beidler
Sue Brauer
Alexis Cain
John Clare
Jim Collins
Abigail Corso
Ken De
Jim Downes
Will Elcoate
Danny Epstein
Gary Gulezian
Darryl Hogg
T.J. Holson Delta Institute
Dan Hopkins
John Jackson
Allan Jones
Bob Krauel
George Kuper
Dennis Leonard
Tim Lindsay
Zoe Lipman
Edwina Lopes
David Macarus
Matthew MacLeod
Tony Martig
Jennifer McKay
James McKenzie
John Menkedick
Shawn Michajluk
Todd Nettesheim
Erin Newman
Daniel O’Riordan
Dale Phenicie
E. Marie Phillips
Darrell Piekarz
Steve Rosenthal
Sam Sasnett
Adel Shalaby
Jim Smith
Lora Smith
Ted Smith
Robert Springer
Evelyn Strader
Amy Thomas
Tom Tseng
S. Venkatesh
Nicole Vidales
Alan Waffle
Dwain Winters
Anita Wong
Cindy Yang

Chlorine Chemistry Council
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
US EPA
Bailey Associates
Syngenta Crop Protection
US EPA Region 5
US EPA Region 5
Environment Canada—National Office of Pollution Prevention
Environment Canada
Delta Institute
Environment Canada
Solutia Inc.
Severn Trent Laboratories
Environment Canada
US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Environment Canada Contractor
US EPA Region 5
Great Lakes United & Citizens’ Network on Waste Management
Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee (C4)
Environment Canada
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Detroit Edison
Illinois Waste Management Resource Center
National Wildlife Federation
Environment Canada, Ontario Region
USEPA Office of Strategic Environmental Analysis
US Department of Energy Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
US EPA
Environment Canada
McKenzieParis Inc.
Battelle
Environment Canada
US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
US EPA
US EPA
Great Lakes National Program Office
Council of Great Lakes Industries
US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Environment Canada
US EPA Region 5
US EPA
Health Canada
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
US EPA Region 5
US EPA Office of Solid Waste
Council of Great Lakes Industries
Battelle
Environment Canada
Environment Canada
Illinois EPA
Environment Canada
US EPA
Environment Canada
Environment Canada