Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholder Forum - 1998

IMPLEMENTING THE BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
Integration Workgroup

Summary of the Integration Group Meeting
June 19 1998

Attendees

Welcome and Introductions

Gary Gulezian, Director of U.S. EPA Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), opened the meeting and turned it over to Martha Prothro, the meeting facilitator. After welcoming the group, Ms. Prothro observed that the Integration Group faces two major challenges: (1) providing leadership on cross-cutting issues and (2) focusing on action. She encouraged the group to focus their efforts on helping the substance-specific workgroups avoid "bogs, blind alleys, and barriers" and achieve "reductions and an appropriate degree of rigor."

Note: Because the group was eager to discuss substantive issues at this meeting, it did not spend much time reviewing the "Integration Group Strawman Tasks and Goals" list distributed by the facilitator or discussing its mission. Integration Group members were encouraged to review this document and forward any comments, additions, or modifications to the facilitator. A revised "Tasks and Goals" list will be distributed to the meeting attendees for discussion and resolution.

Expectations

Ron Shimizu (Environment Canada) thanked the participants for their interest and expressed his hope that this group could make a major contribution to servicing the substance-specific groups of the Binational Toxics Strategy (BNS) by focusing on cross-cutting issues. He reminded the group that they should focus on action. Gary Gulezian described his interest in having the Integration Group be a "communications nexus" across the other workgroups. He encouraged the group to "enable" the success of the substance-specific workgroups.

Werner Braun (CGLI) next provided an industry perspective. He described three challenges facing the BNS effort: (1) encouraging broad-based, comprehensive stakeholder participation; (2) staying focused on goals and acknowledging when we have reached them; and (3) developing a process for determining baselines and loadings so that practical, cost-effective options can be identified and implemented and so that limited resources can be directed to the most severe problems.

Jack Manno (Great Lakes Research Consortium) provided an environmental group perspective. He mentioned pressures environmental group members are feeling to demonstrate to their constituents that the BNS will meet Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement goals. He then described "an ideal BNS" as being one which would include, at a minimum, the following features: (1) high-level agency coordination and participation; (2) legally binding measures; (3) coordination and consistency with related local, regional, and national programs; and (4) processes to encourage development of companion/far-reaching efforts focused on the same goals (e.g., through energy conservation or use-tree and lifecycle approaches). He encouraged the group to understand that voluntary efforts are not workable in the absence of regulations and to remember that challenge goals should be seen as interim steps to virtual elimination goals set forth in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Guy Williams (National Wildlife Federation) encouraged the group to keep a "personal face" on the issues under discussion in order to keep motivation and commitment high.

Meeting Ground Rules

The group agreed to abide by five overarching principles during the kickoff meeting and in future meetings. Several participants expressed interest in seeing a more formal set of ground rules. The agreed-to principles are:

1. Focus
2. Brevity
3. Listening
4. Respect
5. Closure

It was observed that "closure" does not necessarily mean consensus although the group may wish to reach consensus in certain cases. (Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, U.S. EPA would have to seek a special charter for the group if consensus were required for the advice to the Agency.)

Public Recognition/Incentives Program Discussion

The group engaged in a fairly lengthy and lively discussion of recognition/incentives programs and the ways in which environmental agencies can encourage "beyond compliance" behaviors related to achieving BNS challenges. Key comments from the open discussion are included below.

• To be recognized by this effort, Environmental Management Systems (or other incentives/recognition efforts) must be tied to BNS challenges.
• GL Water Quality Agreement objectives should inform the selection of appropriate incentives/recognition programs.
• It is important to increase community groups' understanding of and comfort with recognition/incentives programs; to this end, fall-back regulatory mechanisms and third party verification are necessary components of an acceptable beyond-compliance program.
• Regulatory flexibility programs lacking public involvement activities are worrisome.
• Supporting beyond-compliance programs will require additional agency capacity (e.g., to review and monitor voluntary agreements)Cis it there?
• A credible acknowledgment process must (1) capture local enthusiasm and (2) recognize commitment.
• To be successful, voluntary tools must: (1) be perceived as credible; (2) be effective with good and bad performers; and (3) have regulatory backstops.
• Incentive programs must be developed for communities (e.g., "good neighbor" programs) as well as industries.
• Industry will favor and support activities that increase net present value and profitability and/or decrease money spent to respond to command-and-control regulatory structures.
• Industry participants in the BNS may be best able to convince peers that these programs present good opportunities.
• Recognition programs may not be sufficient enticement for industries to participate.
• It would be unwise to try to create a formal recognition program under BNS; these programs already exist elsewhere (e.g., Project XL).
• BNS cannot provide regulatory relief itself but can direct people to those programs.
• The substance-specific workgroups would benefit from having a catalog of appropriate/successful incentive program ideas.
• Agencies should not provide "rewards" until progress has been verified.
• How can/should we recognize a company that has made progress on one front but not elsewhere?
• Disincentives/negative publicity provide powerful incentives for action, too.
• Options/activities that may seem 'politically infeasible' today (e.g., pollution taxes) may one day be possible; don't give up on them.

Possible Follow-up Actions on Recognition/Incentives Programs

The Integration Group discussed several follow-up actions that could be of benefit and interest to the overall BNS effort and the work of the workgroups.

• Inventory existing recognition and incentive programs; find out what has/not worked; make this information available to the substance-specific workgroups; post on Discussion Forum; make it public elsewhere.
  • find out more about WI P3; cross-Canada survey (by Pollution Probe)
• Develop a catalog of voluntary actions/activities consistent with BNS.
• Research funding sources for community groups; make this information available to workgroups.
• Make these findings available to early review group (Jack Manno, Paula Labadie (BASF), Carri Lohse-Hanson (MPCA), and a CGLI representative) and others (via Discussion Forum); prepare issue for further discussion at next Integration Group meeting.

Membership Targeting and Recruitment

Several chemical-specific workgroups requested Integration Group assistance in recruiting participants to their group. In its discussion of this issue, meeting participants made the following points and observations.

• Targeting efforts should be spearheaded by workgroups themselves and focused on those industries or facilities which produce, release, and/or store the substance in question.
• CGLI is willing to approach industry leaders to participate in workgroups; however, the list of potential "invitees" must be better-winnowed.
• GLNPO and EC should continually monitor individual workgroup composition.
• Do we need leadership-level participation and outreach?
• Municipal participation is lacking on workgroups.
• HCB workgroup needs industry/emitters; Pesticides needs Health Canada's participation.

Possible Follow-up Actions on Membership Recruitment

• Communicate back to workgroups that they should lead efforts to recruit participants to their group. In recruiting industry, encourage them to focus on industries/facilities that generate/produce/release the substance. Integration Group members will help where they can.
• EPA and EC should develop a list of workgroup member responsibilities (so recruits understand what is being asked of them). It was noted that industry might be more interested in workgroup activities once initial data-gathering and analysis are complete.
• Consider producing letters of invitation from GLNPO and EC. Consider follow-up calls from workgroup members to potential workgroup members.

Reporting on Progress

The group discussed two different types of reporting: (1) progress on challenge goals and (2) activity/status reports. The general feeling of the group was that the governments should be responsible for reporting. The Integration Group does see an advisory role for itself in the development of appropriate reporting mechanisms (e.g., to ensure that the selected processes are "transparent" and accessible to the public and the workgroups).

The group discussed the importance of innovative reporting tools (e.g., case studies of successful ventures, innovative partnerships) and of making BNS information widely available to the public. The group agreed on the value and importance of publicizing success stories. The group was also reminded that a report from the BNS effort is expected at SOLEC in October.

The discussion touched on possible limitations associated with using the World Wide Web as a communication tool, the importance of clearly attributing Web postings to sponsoring organizations or individuals (and not the BNS), and the importance of providing public access to governmental decision-making processes. The Integration Group will continue to track these issues as part of its ongoing work.

Possible Follow-up Actions for Reporting on Progress

The Integration Group suggested that as part of its review of recognition/incentive programs, the governments should propose appropriate reporting mechanisms and measures for early group review and, ultimately, the Integration Group to review and provide input on.

Process for Addressing Other Issues Raised by the Workgroups

Before lunch, attendees ranked cross-cutting issues arising out of the chemical-specific workgroups for the 2:00pm session (for Integration Group attention). The highest ranked issues were to be discussed at this meeting.

Member Issue Ranking

Long-Range Transport (LRT)

The Integration Group briefly discussed long-range transport and how the BNS could be used to obtain more reductions from sources outside the Great Lakes Basin. The following observations were made.

• Don't get bogged down in data-gathering. Draw on other efforts' work (e.g., IADN, CEC Sound Management of Chemicals Workgroup). Identify and take advantage of low-hanging fruit.
• The PBT should be the focal point for building a cross-country network/process for dealing with LRT. Federal involvement is critical in these cross-jurisdictional situations.
• Do not look to LAMPs to deal with out-of-basin sources; their focus is on in-Basin sources.
• The Great Lakes States look to the federal component of the BNS to address non-Great Lakes sources of toxics.
• The BNS provides a great platform for addressing this issue take advantage of it!
• Headquarters has primary responsibility for dealing with other countries (CEC, POPs); our group can share information with them.
• The Integration Group can encourage the U.S. State Department and Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to (jointly) develop international negotiation strategies to address LRT issues. A letter from Gary and Ron can help catalyze these activities.

Possible Follow-up Activities on LRT

• Tell the workgroups to "keep struggling with this issue" but to expect support from the Integration Group, especially through the BNS co-chairs' and workgroup leaders' efforts.
• Assess the relative contribution of out-of-basin pollutants to the Great Lakes (using available data). Post these finding on the Web and share them with the workgroups.
• Identify policy opportunities to affect this issue on national and international levels. Follow up on those opportunities.
• Investigate the possibility of having a meeting/workshop to present information on air deposition to the public.
• Workgroup chairs (as well as BNS co-chairs) should continue to bring pressure to bear on non-GL sources via national and international initiatives. A joint letter from Gary and Ron could help catalyze these efforts.
• Pull together options for a joint U.S.-Canada plan to deal with LRT, per the BNS.
• Clarify distinction between alkyl-lead and other forms of lead. [There seems to be some confusion about this.]
• Share the IADN Mercury report with others.
• Hold joint BNS-CEC workshop to address long-range transport issues.

Sediments

Next, the Integration Group discussed (1) whether contaminated sediments are considered "sources" in the context of the BNS and (2) whether a new "Sediments" workgroup should be convened. It was determined that sediments are covered in a separate challenge in the BNS; the chemical-specific BNS challenges are not intended to include contaminated sediments. Chemical-specific workgroups can consider sediments as sources but need not include them in inventories toward achieving the BNS challenge goals. A few key comments from the discussion follow.

• Stay strong on PCB challenges; don't let sediments dilute the workgroup's focus.
• SEDPAC can provide guidance/advice to this effort. SEDPAC/IJC may be able to help delineate boundaries.
• Need to define baselines and what "well-advanced" means to make progress on the sediment challenge in the BNS.

Possible Future Actions on Sediments

• Tell workgroups not to consider sediments in source inventories for challenge goals.
• Talk to SEDPAC re. defining "well-advanced" and baselines.
• Develop a system for quantifying activities.

Next Steps for the Integration Group

The Integration Group did not schedule its next meeting but instead asked the government leads and contractors to keep a running list of Integration Group issues and to call the meeting when a full day's work had accumulated. One participant speculated that this would occur about six weeks after the chemical-specific workgroups meet. (Each workgroup, however, is responsible for setting its own schedule.) The attendees also encouraged the governments to frame the issues as completely as possible (based largely on the ideas generated at this meeting) so that the group can focus on decisions and guidance.