Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholders Forum - Chicago, Illinois

December 1, 2004
Welcome, Introductions & Stakeholder Activity Updates  

Integration Workgroup - Meeting Summary

Danny Epstein, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada (EC), and Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), welcomed all participants to the Integration Workgroup meeting of the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS). Gary noted there were several significant items on the agenda to be discussed. Danny added that the new format of the Stakeholder Forum has been well-received. Stakeholders value the longer break-out sessions for the substance workgroups following the shorter plenary session. Danny also noted that several new developments have occurred for both agencies, and at the next meeting he and Gary should report out on these new developments.  

Stakeholder Activity Updates  

Participants around the table introduced themselves and provided brief stakeholder activity updates. 

Rachel Heckl of Great Lakes United said she has been working on the issue of brominated flame retardants in the Great Lakes region and suggested using the Binational Toxics Strategy to raise awareness among other environmental groups about this environmental concern.

Julie Schroeder of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) said she is conducting a survey of Tier 1 and Tier 2 substances in order to develop a public outreach effort available on the Internet to make people aware of how pollutants affect their health (e.g. wood stove changeouts would remove polluting stoves and replace them with cleaner burning models).

Gary Gulezian announced that a new Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) was to be held on Friday, December 3, in Chicago. Members of the President's Cabinet, all the Great Lakes governors, members of the Great Lakes Congressional delegation, mayors, and Tribal leaders are expected to be in attendance at the meeting. Canadian representatives are also invited to be observers. Gary said the framework for the GLRC defines the process for developing a Great Lakes restoration plan and protection strategy. The framework also calls for, within one year, a strategy to restore and protect the Great Lakes now and into the future. Following the meeting, attendees are going to meet for the first time as eight teams. One of the eight teams is a persistent bioacculumative toxics (PBT) reduction team. Other teams consist of: habitat/species, invasive species, indicators and information, sustainable development, coastal health, non-point source pollution, and areas of concern (AOC) restoration.

The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy – A Look at the Great Lakes Ecosystem

Alan Waffle and S. Venkatesh reported on the presentation they gave during their trip to Hong Kong in November. They provided the Hong Kong audience with an overview of the Great Lakes Basin with maps, photos, and details about each of the Great Lakes. They also described the GLBTS, how it was initiated, and the framework in which it operates. A listing of GLBTS collaborations with industry and non-governmental organizations was also presented. Alan reviewed the challenge goals and status for the GLBTS Level 1 substances and described the numerous successes that have resulted from the GLBTS (e.g., mercury use reduction in U.S. chlor-alkali industry and phase-out of PCB equipment in the Canadian steel sector). Alan also reviewed the numerous Great Lakes monitoring programs with pictorial presentations and temporal trends of various Level 1 substances. 

S. Venkatesh reported to the audience in Hong Kong on work they have done with respect to long range transport modeling from a regional and global perspective. He summarized the initiative EPA has undertaken with China and India to reduce the production and usage of lindane because of the impacts elsewhere. There is increasing evidence that substances like this can be transported to the Great Lakes on a continental, and in some cases, global scale. Venkatesh also presented the results of the modeling work they have conducted on lindane as well as the global model for atmospheric transport of mercury (GRAHM – Global and Regional Atmospheric Heavy Metals model).

Venkatesh concluded that there is much enthusiasm in China to conduct more research and modeling work on global environmental issues.   

Substance Workgroup Reports

The substance workgroup co-chairs presented highlights of the previous day’s workgroup meetings. Tony Martig, the US PCB Workgroup co-chair, summarized the issues discussed in the PCB Workgroup meeting:

• Scott Tajak of AIG provided a presentation on environmental insurance and impacts of how PCB equipment is considered in industrial insurance rates and the potential effect (i.e. lower rating) if the equipment is removed. Scott discussed the potential impact of tighter SEC regulations on disclosure of environmental liabilities, and mentioned that the GAO recommends the SEC work with EPA.
• Tony Martig described a partnership program initiated by EPA’s Office of Solid Waste (OSW) known as the National Partnership for Environmental Priorities Program (NPEP).  The goal of the program is to reduce 31 priority chemicals, including PCBs, mercury, and dioxin. NPEP encourages public and private organizations to form voluntary partnerships with EPA to reduce the use or release of these 31 priority chemicals. There was some discussion about possible integration with the PCB Workgroup. OSW could also be an advocate for the PCB Workgroup.  Tony indicated he needs to follow up with Dave Carver of OSW to continue this.
• Todd Nettesheim presented results on the latest PCB findings from the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) and provided guidance on the interpretation and use of the results by the workgroup.
• Dr. Bill Mills gave a presentation on the preliminary results of a source emissions study analyzing ambient air samples collected around in-use PCB transformers to evaluate emissions of PCBs from the transformers.
• The GLBTS PCB Management Assessment was discussed. In addition to environmental levels, mass flux should be considered in the assessment.
• An opportunity to enhance outreach, compliance, and phase-out of PCBs by reaching out to small- and medium-sized companies was also presented.

George Kuper commented that Mr. Tajak committed to check with manufacturers on whether they could include some formal notice on PCB equipment.

Steve Rosenthal, the US HCB/B(a)P Workgroup co-chair, summarized the previous day’s joint Dioxin/HCB/B(a)P Workgroup meeting and the afternoon HCB/B(a)P Workgroup meeting:

• Bruce Gillies, chair of the Burn Barrel Subgroup, provided a brief update of the subgroup’s work and how it has been receiving an increasing amount of attention from government offices, not limited to the Basin. Bruce noted the subgroup to date has focused on education and outreach, but is currently gathering case studies looking at effective infrastructure solutions.
• Michael Blumenthal of the Rubber Manufacturer’s Association (RMA) gave a presentation on a scrap tire pile abatement project they are working on with EPA Region 5. A paper on how to take down a tire pile is being prepared that will be going out for peer review soon. RMA is also working with the Rubber Association of Canada to address piles in Ontario.
• Shawn Michajluk provided an update on Ontario’s Tire Stewardship (OTS) Program.
• Anita Wong provided an update on uncontrolled combustion issue papers that were prepared for Environment Canada and about the comments received on the papers.
• Dave Ailor gave an update on the iron and steel sector focusing on the operating status of U.S. coke plants.
• An update on Ontario’s Wood Preservation Sector was delivered by Cindy Yang.
• John Menkedick briefly outlined the framework used to assess progress for each of the GLBTS Level 1 substances.
• In the afternoon, a US and Canadian update was shared on gathering HCB release information attributed to pesticide application.
• An update on Ontario’s Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) Program was presented by Victor Li. He said the promotion of EPA-certified stoves continues in Ontario.
• Bob Bailey provided an update on the accuracy of HCB releases reported in EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program.
• An update on Basin air quality for HCB and B(a)P was provided by Melissa Hulting. Her update was derived from IADN and Canadian National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) monitoring data.

Steve Rosenthal remarked that despite the reported B(a)P US reduction of 74 percent in the Basin, the lack of any overall improvement in air quality highlights the possibility there may still be unaccounted B(a)P sources.

Anita Wong, the Canadian Dioxin Workgroup co-chair, presented an overview of the day’s Dioxin Workgroup meeting. Anita commented that she did not have much to add to Steve’s summary of the joint meeting the day before which mainly focused on sources of interest to both workgroups. Other updates from the meeting included:

• A discussion of poorly characterized sources of dioxin, one-third of them being open burning sources. The Burn Barrel Subgroup is addressing the household open burning issue; case studies are being prepared to encourage the minimization of burn barrel usage.
• Shawn Michajluk summarized the Voluntary Stack Testing effort underway in Ontario, a GLBTS initiative that commenced in 2000 targeting poorly characterized sources. 
• Draft papers on uncontrolled combustion were updated following a first round of comments. Further comments are requested on these updated issue papers.
• The remainder of the afternoon session focused on a discussion of the draft dioxin management assessment and the development of management assessment outcomes. The group is aiming to prepare another draft of the dioxin management assessment in January.

Gina Temple-Rhodes of Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) added that the WLSSD is planning a workshop in March that will address burn barrel strategy and plans. She will be distributing more information on the workshop the first of the year.

Edwina Lopes, substituting for Bob Krauel, the Canadian Mercury Workgroup co-chair, summarized the issues discussed in the Mercury Workgroup meeting:  

• Shelly Bonte-Gelok and Tom Tyler discussed efforts to form national partnerships for auto mercury switch removal.
• John Reindl described the product stewardship initiative work being done with mercury-containing thermostats.
• An update on mercury use in the chlor-alkali industry was given.
• Luke Trip presented information on the progress on the  Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) North American Mercury Action Plan and discussed opportunities for CEC/GLBTS cooperation.
• A discussion on coal blending for mercury emissions reduction was given.
• A panel of speakers presented information about the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing utility regulations at the state level.
• Brief updates were provided about the mercury inventory, the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD) mercury reduction program, and the 8th International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant, the reduction progress memo on Lake Superior shipping industry projects.

Substance Pilot Updates – General Framework to Assess Management of GLBTS Level 1 Substances

Ted Smith and Alan Waffle provided the Integration Workgroup with an overview of the process and update on the assessments for the remaining Level 1 substances, which were: alkyl lead, banned pesticides, mercury, PCBs, HCB, and B(a)P.

In addition to reports for the remaining Level 1 substances, the two pilot assessments for OCS and dioxin/furan need to be completed. Ted indicated he would ask monitoring program leaders for available data with which to conduct the framework assessments. He also suggested that State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) reports should help provide data for the assessments. Ted indicated that he would set the deadline for submitting data in the first part of January.

Battelle will commence the six remaining draft assessments, summarizing available environmental data, and attempting to address the management piece of the assessment. It was suggested that by February the six drafts could be submitted to the workgroup leaders for their initial review and comment before the next meeting. Their comments would be incorporated, and the draft assessments would then be distributed to stakeholders for comment. They said this process should be driven by the workgroup leaders. Alan stated the end goal was to prepare the reports in a bundled format and present the findings to the Binational Executive Committee in the June/July timeframe.

Danny Epstein suggested that the group be flexible with the meeting time and that perhaps the original February Integration Workgroup meeting date might be pushed back. Alan noted that this imposed a logistical issue, since some arrangements are pre-booked, but he would check on meeting space availability.  

OCS Assessment

Tom Tseng noted that comments on the OCS assessment had been addressed to reflect a binational point of view more effectively and new management outcomes had been included. Tom asked that any other comments be sent to himself and Frank Anscombe in writing before the next Integration Workgroup meeting.  

Allan Jones asked why they wanted to prolong this effort; he agreed with the management outcomes for OCS. George Kuper did not think there was a need to discuss OCS again at the previous day’s Stakeholder Forum or the present Integration Workgroup meeting. He approved of the management outcomes suggested.   

Mike Murray suggested adding a statement about having “no risk-based reasons for further action.”  

John Jackson expressed his agreement with the management recommendations, noting that the inconsistencies between the US and Canada have been addressed. John appreciated the OCS assessment being addressed one more time with the Integration Workgroup.  

Responding to a question posed by John Jackson about approving the assessments, Gary Gulezian said the assessment does not need to be voted on per se, but should reflect discussion and input provided by the Integration Workgroup. Danny agreed with Gary’s response.  

Dioxin/Furan Assessment

Anita Wong reported that, since the Integration Workgroup meeting in Toronto, a conference call was held to review comments received from the Chlorine Chemistry Council, National Wildlife Federation, and Council of Great Lakes Industries.  

Anita summarized a few key issues that were raised during the Dioxin Workgroup meeting. These issues concerned the meaning of fish advisories, the availability of trend data, when trend data is sufficient, and what constitutes a declining trend. The discussion then turned to a review of three cross-cutting issues: 1) not being able to cite the US EPA Draft Dioxin Reassessment, 2) the current trends in food studies and NHANES, and 3) how to address health impact data.  

Anita then turned it over to Dwain Winters for additional comments. Dwain stated that the US EPA Draft Dioxin Reassessment cannot be cited as a source of data for the assessments. He said this includes the Dioxin Inventory. Dwain also noted that the Dioxin challenge goal is tied to a document in direct reference to the US EPA Draft Dioxin Reassessment.  

Dwain then discussed possible management outcomes for dioxin. He said in order to determine if the GLBTS can affect further reductions, it needs to be differentiated what the Dioxin Workgroup can do versus what the GLBTS can do. Moving through the framework, Dwain stated that the Dioxin Workgroup could affect further reductions via the Burn Barrel Subgroup. He noted that dioxin is not lake specific. As for setting new challenge goals, Dwain said that if new challenge goals were to be established they should be more qualitative than quantitative.  

The goal is to prepare another version of the draft Dioxin Management Assessment and submit it to the workgroup for comment.  

Dale Phenicie did not expect disagreement with the final management outcome, but with how the assessment arrives there. He is looking forward to the next draft and agreed a new challenge goal does not need to be a percentage; rather, he mentioned exposure pathways.  

Erin Newman noted that exposure pathways were not included in the environmental section of the assessment, while Anita questioned whether exposure pathway intervention was within the scope of what the assessment.
Danny concluded by thanking Dale for his comments and complimenting the workgroup co-chairs for trying to incorporate suggestions and comments and moving the dioxin assessment in the right direction.  

SOLEC – Chemical Integrity Workgroup

Dale Phenicie of the Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI) presented results from the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) Chemical Integrity Workshop. Dale is a SOLEC Steering Committee Member and workshop co-chair.

As Dale explained, purpose of the workshop was to begin a dialog regarding “chemical integrity.” The theme of SOLEC 2006 is Chemical Integrity of the Great Lakes Ecosystem.  Dale further explained that the first step of the workshop was to seek definitions of “chemical integrity.” The workshop format consisted of speakers and panelists who were considered ecosystem experts. Three senior level Great Lakes researchers provided perspectives on the definition, how to monitor for, and what research is needed on chemical integrity.  Four senior-level Great Lakes researchers provided discussion comments. Dale also noted that the workshop audience was invited to provide discussion comments. The discussion points were recorded for use by the SOLEC Steering Committee.

Dale said the discussion focused mostly on the elements that define chemical integrity and included a discussion on monitoring and research needs. One of the speakers, Dr. Gerald Matisoff of Case Western Reserve University, noted that chemicals interact with biological function and physical integrity. Dale stated that chemical integrity could be defined the same way James Karr defined biological integrity, as “the capacity to support and maintain a balanced, integrated and adaptive biological system having the full range of elements and processes expected in a region’s natural habitat.”

The workshop also discussed whether missing SOLEC indicators might help assess chemical integrity. Other conclusions that resulted from the discussion were that current chemicals of concern are declining, and other substances should be followed rather than ‘worry’ about those already on the decomposition track. In order to look ahead, forecasting models are needed to predict effects of biological, chemical, physical, and human-induced changes to ecosystems. A final conclusion was that if there was a focus on assessment rather than monitoring, the right indicators of chemical integrity would become apparent.

Dale then presented the various panel member reactions that resulted from the discussion. In summary, panelists felt that: current chemical detectability shifts focus on significance; it is important to consider chemical impacts in relation to other substances already in the ecosystem; to view lakes as habitats, consider how chemical and biological factors affect these; models are needed that include all cross-cutting factors; and care should be taken not to focus solely on impacts to water because chemical integrity is a multimedia issue. Some of the audience’s comments were to apply new analytical techniques to archived samples to fill data gaps and to consider the presence of natural substances - especially in the “how clean is clean?” debate.

Dale further discussed the speaker points and highlights from the monitoring and research needs discussion. One need identified was that a broad range of factors in monitoring and forecasting efforts should be included such as climate change, aging infrastructures, AOC status, rates of contaminant decline, PBTs, nutrients, and “new” chemicals. Other needs identified included the ability to understand lake dynamics and to improve the ability to apply science to policymaking processes. Another need was that younger Great Lakes scientists must be recruited and retained.  

Following the speakers at the workshop, the panel provided comments. Some of their comments were that a blend of research, modeling, and monitoring is needed, ecosystem effects as well as substance presence should be monitored, and actions should focus on critical matters via risk assessment. They also noted that political realities are a problem and that regulatory agencies should be more proactive. Some of the points raised by  the audience were to learn to address issues and observations outside of the government system, to include municipal-level policy personnel in the process since they implement it, and to expand SOLEC monitoring from mid-lake to shore and tributary mouths. Final points were that scientists should build bridges and consensus with the public, and when assessing chemical integrity, issues to consider include: the rates of change, natural conditions or concentrations, biological conditions and freedom from man-made chemicals, ecosystem form and function in light of human uses and presence, and sustainability of human uses. 

Dale concluded by stating that the SOLEC Steering Committee will meet December 6, 2004, to start the planning process for SOLEC 2006.

International Toxics Reduction Efforts – Engaging GLBTS Stakeholders

Panel speakers, Luke Trip of the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and Angela Bandemehr of EPA’s Office of International Affairs gave presentations as to how international programs are helping goals of the GLBTS and solicited GLBTS stakeholders to participate in international projects.

Luke Trip provided a brief presentation describing the CEC Sound Management of Chemicals (SMOC) program. Luke reported that the CEC SMOC program is undergoing a review and looking at future directions. Future directions under SMOC include reducing risks, building partnerships, sustained capacity building, and communications and outreach.

Luke highlighted potential opportunities for cooperation between the CEC and the GLBTS. He pointed out several areas of similarity between the two efforts, such as substances of concern.  The CEC has developed and is implementing action plans for PCBs, DDT, chlordane, mercury, and environmental monitoring and assessment. Action plans are under development for lindane, dioxins/furans/HCB, and lead. Another concern common to CEC and the GLBTS is long-range atmospheric transport, which carries pollutants of common concern over North America.

Luke listed possible CEC and GLBTS collaborative projects such as an assessment of DDT contributions to the Great Lakes, participating in mercury product reduction initiatives, and air monitoring networks for dioxin/furans and HCB.  Luke said SMOC is currently involved in several projects in Mexico, including a DDT project and a dioxin/furan air monitoring network. Mexico has also expressed a willingness to reduce and eliminate PCBs.

A comment was made about the work SMOC is doing with lindane. Luke said that a North American Regional Action Plan (NARAP) is being prepared for lindane. Luke said for every one ton of lindane produced, 10 tons of HCH isomer is produced and looks like snow. Ken De asked if HCH is toxic. Luke stated that it was toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative.

Luke felt the GLBTS can help address many of the areas in which SMOC is involved. George Kuper said that, perhaps after a substance goes through the management assessment framework and reaches the decision to refer to another outside program, we could go to the CEC with thoughts and suggestions. He also expressed concern that industry focus is on Great Lakes Region issues, not on international ones such as issues in the Artic or the Stockholm Protocol.

Luke stated that, in an age of multinational companies, companies located in the Great Lakes have companies or subsidiaries in Mexico or elsewhere where the CEC and OIA may be working.

Danny Epstein agreed that the GLBTS needs to be engaged with the CEC and OIA and to have an ongoing relationship not with just Great Lakes groups like LaMPs. Luke agreed with Danny and noted that relationships do exist that bridge the GLBTS with the CEC. Luke stated that Bob Krauel participates on the mercury NARAP committee and Dwain Winters of EPA sits on the Dioxin NARAP committee. Luke asked that perhaps someone from the GLBTS could be nominated to the monitoring and assessment task force. 

John Jackson stated that Great Lakes United is committed to addressing out-of-basin sources and that it is reassuring to see that international initiatives are already underway. He said it is a very important message that the GLBTS could take to the LaMPs. John also asked if the NARAPs would address needs in the Great Lakes Basin. It was suggested that a review of the NARAPs be conducted in order to determine this.

Jim Smith suggested that, rather than looking at what the CEC is doing, to take our work (e.g., burn barrel outreach, wood stove initiatives) and to see how it can fit into the CEC’s work. Funds could be leveraged to further research and outreach.

Ted Smith offered to write up a list of programs for potential joint GLBTS/CEC work and distribute it to the group. George Kuper felt this would be inappropriate given his industry focus and contacts. Danny said he understands George’s perspective but would like to allow for dialogue to take place between the groups to see how the GLBTS and SMOC program can better work together.

Angela Bandemehr is the Deputy Toxics Team Leader for EPA’s Office of International Affairs (OIA). Her presentation provided an overview of OIA’s PBT/Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) Program and its pollutants of focus such as mercury and Stockholm Convention POPs: PCBs, dioxins/furans, POPs pesticides, and emerging chemicals such as lindane and brominated flame retardants. OIA works with China, India, Russia, Africa, and the Caribbean Basin/Central America. Angela provided an outline of OIA projects by pollutant and country; OIA will be working on these projects guided by EPA’s Strategic Plan for 2003-2008.

Angela gave several examples to demonstrate the type of actions the United States and other countries have taken to address PBT/POP pollutants, and to describe the actions set into motion by the Stockholm Convention on POPs to address this issue globally.

For mercury, the OIA has worked with Russia to complete an emissions inventory, for India they have provided training and technology transfer on emissions testing from the power sector, and in China they have developed a situational assessment for ambient monitoring from the power sector. Angela also provided an overview of the numerous POPs projects underway in Russia, Africa, India, and the Carribean Region.:

• The Artic Council Action Plan (ACAP) has been developed to manage obsolete and prohibited pesticides and the phase-out of use and management of PCBs in the Russian Federation.
• The Africa Stockpiles Program (ASP) is a multi-partner effort to clean up and safely dispose of all obsolete pesticide stocks from Africa. A best practices guideline will be transferred throughout the ASP and beyond. ASP tonnage inventoried so far totals 50,000 tons.
• EPA and India are working together on the India Stockpiles Project to support training in India for conducting inventories of banned or obsolete pesticides, followed by an inventory demonstration in one State.
• Efforts are underway in the wider Caribbean Region to develop a model to reduce sources of PCBs in the region.
• A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) (in China) was formed to manage unintentional releases of dioxins/furans from cement kilns, reduce lindane emissions, and assist in a Global Environment Facility (GEF) project to remove PCBs.

Agenda Planning 

The group considered the need to rethink the purpose and timing of the next meeting. The group discussed moving the meeting scheduled for mid-February to later in February or March so that substance workgroups would have the opportunity to discuss their substance assessments.

Other items suggested for discussion at the next meeting include:

Next Meeting

The next GLBTS Integration Workgroup meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, March 23, 2005, in Windsor, Ontario. 

Attendees