Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

 

Stakeholders Forum

Integration Group Meeting
August 28, 2001

Lake Michigan Room
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chicago, Illinois

 

Welcome

Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency, welcomed participants to the tenth Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) Integration Group meeting. Gary reminded the group that the strategy has been devoted to the gathering of information on substance sources and opportunities for reduction over the past ten years. Gary encouraged participants to use today’s meeting to consider new ways to move the strategy forward in order to seek further reductions of toxic substances and to continue to make progress towards reduction targets. Danny Epstein, the new Director of the Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada, also welcomed participants to the meeting. He called attention to the many linkages to be made between the strategy and other toxics reduction initiatives such as Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and Lake-wide  Management Plans (LaMPs). He also encouraged participants to consider innovative ways to move the strategy forward. Danny then introduced Megan McGarrity and James McKenzie of McKenzieParis, the meeting’s facilitator and recorder. 

Megan welcomed the group and the meeting agenda. She then invited participants to introduce themselves and the organization they were representing, and to provide organizational updates. 

Stakeholder and Government Activity Updates 

John Jackson announced that Great Lakes United (GLU) is hosting a workshop on community health at the Montreal meeting of the International Joint Commission (IJC), and that GLU continues to work at eliminating mercury from cars and company stewardships for mercury products already in cars. 

Andy Buchsbaum, recently promoted to Senior Manager for Great Lakes Protection and Restoration with the National Wildlife Federation, announced that the NWF had recently completed a project that assisted with the elimination of mercury from 70 health care facilities in Saginaw Bay. Calculations on how much mercury was removed from the waste stream are anywhere between a few hundred to a few thousand pounds. Andy noted that the NWF has an internal process similar to the BTS sector process, and that they have a list of potential sectors to approach. 

Danny Epstein informed the group that Environment Canada is able to commit approximately $50,000 funding dollars to the barrel burning project (to complement U.S. EPA funding). He announced that an outreach program would commence shortly in conjunction with Minnesota state environmental groups, the Lake Superior Forum, and the Association of Minnesota Recycling Coordinators. Danny also informed the group that the burn barrel subgroup is working on a strategy to help Ontario municipalities develop infrastructure alternatives to backyard trash burning, and that the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) is developing education materials to support this project. 

Alan Waffle reminded the group that a draft of the GLBTS Progress Report is scheduled to be completed by the November Integration Group meeting. He asked participants to send any comments and suggestions on the formatting of the report by September 15, 2001 to himself (alan.waffle@ec.gc.ca) or to E. Marie Phillips , the Acting US Co-chair GLBTS,  (phillips.emarie@epamail.epa.gov). 

Dale Phenicie announced that the industry group has been active, especially in the area of HCB, mercury, PCBs and B(a)P. He confirmed the commitment of the Council of Great Lakes Industries to the GLBTS, but cautioned that they were experiencing economic constraints. Gary Allie echoed Dale’s comments. He shared that 19 companies in the steel manifesting industry have had to declare bankruptcy. 

Tony Martig announced that the PCB workgroup is currently pursuing commitment letters with many trade associations. He also announced that Canada has met 80% of the challenge to date, and that the U.S. is currently completing a collection of data on PCB disposal. He will further update the group in November. 

George Kuper expressed his interest in the GLBTS communication strategy. He requested that a discussion of communications be added to the meeting agenda. 

Sector Pilot – Information Presentation on Phase I 

Megan noted that the members of the sector subgroup, which was formed at the May 2001 Integration Group Meeting in Toronto, have been working diligently for the past three months on the task of developing a short list of sectors. This work has been based on the opportunities identified in the step 3 reports for follow-up work that could culminate in the selection of one or more potential pilot sector projects. Megan invited Alan Waffle of Environment Canada, Dale Phenicie of the Council of Great Lakes Industries, Andy Buchsbaum of the National Wildlife Federation, and E. Marie Phillips of the USEPA to make a presentation on the work and outcomes of the sector subgroup to date. 

Alan introduced the sector subgroup initiative by describing that early in the GLBTS process workgroup leaders had expressed interest in a sectoral approach when implementing actions in support of GLBTS reduction targets. He also noted that the governments were interested in a multi-substance, comprehensive approach with respect to the allocation of limited time, monetary, and human resources, and in the interest of increased flexibility to implement GLBTS reduction actions. He described the sector subgroup’s consideration of the work undertaken by the workgroups in Steps 1-3 of the GLBTS process and the potential for innovative approaches to offer greater flexibility and toxic reduction opportunities than conventional pollution prevention methods. Alan then described questions posed by the sector subgroup to gather substantive information, which included:

He also described other considerations, which included:

Finally, he described that the selection process will culminate in the undertaking of a reduction initiative(s) in the chosen sector. 

Next, Dale described the process undertaken by the group to arrive at a short list of candidate sectors. The group devoted a considerable period of time and energy to discussions of process and selection criteria. First, initial discussions took place about the purpose of this undertaking. It was agreed that the group would build upon existing activities. Next, the group nominated a long list of sectors by considering opportunities for multiple substance reductions and the potential impact of such undertakings on a substance and/or sector. Information from Step 3 reports and the decision tree developed by Battelle was relied on by the group during its evaluation process. Next, an intermediate list was generated through group discussions about the list of nominated sectors. Finally, the group created a short list by comparing sectors with the fewest nominations, at the bottom of the list, against those sectors with the most nominations, at the top of the list, all while considering the decision tree exclusion criteria, the opportunities for manufacturing vs. secondary/disposal sectors, and the ability to target more than one substance.

Next, Andy presented the short list of proposed sectors. He explained that the group was able to achieve consensus on this list, which includes:

He described that the engagement potential, given the regulatory implications, of the Utilities/Electric Power Generation sectors is likely high. He expressed optimism about the potential for engagement of the Automobile and Related Manufacturing sector given their supply chain leverage. He described that public wastewater treatment facilities produce by-products that contain many GLBTS substances of concern and further described that sector could also leverage upstream industries that contribute substances of concern. Dale will continue to look into the Secondary Copper Smelting sector. The potential for engagement will continue to be addressed during the next stages of the sector subgroup’s activities. 

Finally, E. Marie presented potential next steps for the sector subgroup. She suggested that the group will concentrate on information gathering and outreach in order to work towards the creation of a short report on each sector featuring reduction opportunities, approachability, innovative approaches opportunities, and recommendations for presentation at the November Integration Group meeting. She also suggested that the USEPA and Environment Canada take responsibility for generating the first draft of these reports. E. Marie thanked Integration Group members who have participated in the sector subgroup, and who will continue doing so, and encouraged other members to join in this effort. The presenters invited the group to share any questions or comments. 

Danny Epstein began the discussion by expressing the opinion that he does not view the inclusion of innovative approaches as an absolute shift in direction from substances to sectors, but rather as an opportunity for multi-substance reductions. He suggested that a sector-based approach will complement a substance-based approach to meet goals of the Strategy. Dale Phenicie expressed interest in continuing to move the Strategy forward based on the work undertaken to date, regardless of the pilot project selection process. Danny further commented that a sector-based approach adds direction to the Strategy, and that by focusing on a particular sector, other linkages could be made. He stressed that the Strategy does not stand alone, but provides direction to all of us to work within our own forums. 

George Kuper expressed the concern that no assessment was made as to the significance of emissions in the basin, and stressed the importance of accounting for each sector’s relevant contribution. He also suggested that the sector subgroup include a criterion that considers the appropriateness of a pilot project for regional activities. George expressed concern about the engagement criteria currently being utilized. He further suggested that the sector subgroup consider work already going on at the national level and assess the impact of those activities and programs on GLBTS objectives. 

David Macarus suggested that more quantitative information should be included in the pilot project selection process. Dale informed the group that the sector subgroup has been working with quantitative information. Andy further elaborated this point by describing that the sector subgroup had considered the step reports and the matrix (created by Battelle and presented at the May 2001 Integration Group meeting), but acknowledged that this information was limited. Further, he suggested that the short list could not have been created in the limited time frame available had the sector subgroup been required to verify the accuracy of all of the emission numbers in the step reports. George asked if the sector subgroup had tried to match the selection of the short list against the goals of the BTS and if the sector subgroup had investigated short listed sectors to gauge their willingness to participate. Andy described that the group agreed to focus on sectors and that the willingness to engage criterion was employed during the selection process. 

John Jackson asked what the GLBTS could do if, after investigation, all of the sectors were found to contribute significant amounts of substances important to the reduction goals of the GLBTS. Gary Gulezian responded, stating that this effort was initially expected to lead to a single pilot, but that the GLBTS should remain open to other ideas, including the possibility that it may not be appropriate to undertake a sector pilot. 

John added that he hoped, based on the decision tree criteria, that the significance of emissions in a sector will be a factor in decision. He further added that, on the criteria of approachability, an industry that is deemed to be less or not approachable should not be left alone automatically. He suggested that if their toxics contribution is great then the Strategy should find a way to approach them. If their contributions are significant, we might want to do something with them. 

Jim Downes suggested that further investigation into the sectors, including their infrastructure, was necessary. He also cautioned the group to be aware of anti-trust regulations when sharing information between industries. 

Farewell Presentation to Rita Cestaric.  

Alan Waffle announced to the group that Rita would be leaving the GLBTS. Alan described the years of dedicated service that Rita had committed to the Strategy. On behalf of the GLBTS Alan presented Rita with a gift to recognize her hard work and dedication to the initiative.  

Sector Pilot – Discussion of Phase II 

James McKenzie introduced the first item of the afternoon agenda: a facilitated discussion of the next phase of the pilot sector selection process. James commented that this group has a very diverse membership, but has always worked well together by creating a supportive environment. He encouraged members to continue to work together during this session and to continue to be supportive of each other. James then reviewed four points distilled from the informational presentation on phase I of the sector subgroup. The four points were:

John Jackson cautioned that criteria of approachability or willingness to be involved should not automatically be exclusion criteria. Dale expressed his agreement with John. George commented that the group should be cautious about the term value-added.

Gary Allie shared some of his experiences working with trade associations and anti-trust concerns. He described that sharing information and having discussions between companies would not necessarily constitute anti-trust allegations, whereas sharing information on customer costs, share prices, and the division of territory may be problematic. Further, he provided an example of behaviors that could trigger anti-trust concerns. He explained that an industry working to identify a toxic source, then to identify the supplier of the product containing that source, and then agreeing not to support that supplier could constitute an anti-trust violation. Gary then described an auto sector company’s pursuit of ISO certification and ISO supply chain certification. Gary stated that working with suppliers in this fashion did not constitute an anti-trust violation. He suggested that the GLBTS look to trade associations as excellent sources of information on this issue.

Tony Kizlauskas commented that there are many ways to approach anti-trust concerns of companies in regard to sharing their pollution prevention and reduction plans and goals. He suggested that a potential role for the governments could be to raise awareness of substances of concern to companies. 

Gary Gulezian inquired about the role of trade associations in the ISO certification process. Gary Allie explained that, in his experience, the AISI has a sub-committee on the environment which has tracked the development of the ISO certification requirements of suppliers to the auto sector, but that subsequent to that meeting there had not been any others. 

Gary Gulezian inquired as to whether persistent toxics were considered in the ISO certification process. Tim Brown replied that ISO and EMS plans present an opportunity for industry engagement, but generally EMS plans do not include substances of concern to the GLBTS. Tim explained that EMS plans are unique plans created by individual companies that are often unavailable to the public. He suggested that a sector interested in a pilot project could address GLBTS substances in its EMS. Joseph Fiksel added that EMS plans only prescribe how a company will manage its environmental affairs, and do not guarantee higher environmental performance. Tim suggested that, in cases where a supply chain is also engaged, EMS plans may offer benefits to the GLBTS. 

George commented that Step 4 of the GLBTS process suggests looking for innovative approaches. He indicated that ISO should not be considered an innovative approach. He suggested that Step 4 of the GLBTS process should address PBT targets and schedules. George also commented that EMS plans may be kept in confidence by a company because they are seen as a unique asset, or out of competitive interest. Dale Phenicie suggested that the guiding principles of EMS, and the statement of environmental principles, offer freedom to a company to include any goals that they want, including PBTs, for example. He shared information that companies such as Kodak Eastman and Dow Chemical both make public their EMS plans and goals. 

Andy commented that both George and John had raised good points about the short list selection process, but that it was important to continue to engage one or more sectors to move forward. Andy suggested that the group consider what value the GLBTS could add to these sectors, and that the value-added potential to sectors already engaged in national programs versus sectors that have just gone through regulatory scrutiny also be considered. It was suggested that the decision tree criteria may need to be altered so that a value-added criterion may be considered. 

Note:  have John M. look at the following paragraph

Dennis Leonard, of Detroit Edison, informed the group that the utility industry is currently engaged in a national program. He inquired about the Strategy’s interest in mercury, PCP, HCB, and B(a)P. Dale responded that the chemical pentachlorophenol is associated with dioxins and furans. Andy responded that HCB was also involved in wood pole combustion. Dennis described the utility industry’s interest in discussing and understanding pending regulations of NOx, SOx and mercury. Gary Gulezian suggested that information sharing between the utility sector and the Strategy is important. Andy commented that he had details on the global emissions of these substances, and that participants could see him for more details. 

John Menkedick raised the earlier concern about added value. He suggested that the criteria of approachability and opportunity for quick engagement efforts on the decision tree should be further discussed. He further suggested that this undertaking represents opportunities to get at these last substances that are difficult to target. Gary Gulezian suggested that effort should be expended on addressing how we can create value-added opportunities for the sectors that are identified, rather than on the process of selecting more than one sector. Joseph Fiksel expressed concern that the group’s definition of value-added is confusing. He suggested that the Strategy technically is not going to add value to industry; rather that it could offer facilitated opportunities to work towards toxic substance reduction, enabling reductions, as opposed to teaching industry how to achieve reductions. 

George suggested that the substance workgroups consider what is meant by a sector approach. Steve Rosenthal suggested that the sector subgroup should not be discouraged by groups that do not have an industry group, adding that he worked with refineries at the beginning stages without an industry group. Alan Jones commented that the sector subgroup should concentrate on small and medium sized business, and not just big players. 

Andy suggested that the group discuss data collection methodologies and timelines in the context of the sector engagement process. He specifically asked the group for guidance on when to stop gathering data, suggesting that without clarification on this point the writing of a report for November will be difficult. Tim suggested that involving the sectors themselves in the collection of data is key to addressing Andy’s concerns. 

John Menkedick commented that this process paralleled the early stages of the GLBTS, and suggested that in retrospect we have learned to quickly put out a first draft and then work with the draft to identify gaps in data. George suggested that there were many industry representatives around the room who could advise the group on how to take a sectoral approach. He added emphatically that the ability of the group to attract a sector lies in the clear definition of the problem to be solved in the context of the Strategy. 

Andy suggested that the group needed to further consider what type of project it desired. He offered three possibilities: a pilot, a demonstration, or multiple value-added undertakings. He expressed concern about moving forward too quickly, commenting that we have to decide upon the form before we can choose how to move forward. He further added that the criteria and selection process for each possibility may be different. George suggested that the composition of the sector subgroup must expand if we are to make these decisions in an informed manner. Tim suggested that the BTS and the governments should be clear about what they are offering and about what resources we have to offer before we move forward. 

Joe Stepun suggested that we present a strong case for why a particular sector was selected or risk turning off industry involved in that sector. Andy suggested involving sectors in the early stages in order to move the process along by working together. 

Danny Epstein and Gary Gulezian concluded this session. Danny began his concluding remarks by stating that this group will present an interim report at the November Integration Group meeting. He described that the Integration Group has made many good suggestions about the development of the list of criteria for the selection of a pilot. He suggested that, as a next step, the toxic contributions made by each sector be considered, and that some additional research may be required during this process. Danny suggested that many opportunities are present in the GLBTS to lead reductions, and that other opportunities may be based on the leverage of other existing programs. He suggested that we continue to encourage all sectors and facilities to undertake reductions of BTS substances. 

Gary Gulezian suggested that we look broadly at the opportunities that the BTS can leverage. He suggested that these may be sector pilot demonstrations or may take other forms. He further suggested that the BTS build on its skills of synthesizing and sharing information. Gary called on members of the Integration Group to join the sector subgroup and to share their knowledge and ideas with that group. 

Over the lunch break, James McKenzie and Megan McGarrity summarized key points of the morning’s discussion and presented the summarized points to the group upon reconvening. After some discussion, the group came to a general agreement on the following direction for the sector subgroup: the sector subgroup should take today’s ideas and build upon the selection process with a view to clarifying the purpose and means for reduction through value-added initiatives. During the discussion of this statement some other key points were raised and noted. These included:

The group expressed interest in receiving recommendations from the sector subgroup at the next Integration Group meeting in November. James observed that many participants had offered many excellent and diverse ideas for moving the sector initiative forward. He called on members of the Integration Group to join the sector subgroup and to continue to share their ideas in this forum. Gary Gulezian noted that this invitation is extended to all members of the GLBTS forum. 

Beyond Compliance: Innovative Environmental Management Approaches.

Dr. Joseph Fiksel, Vice President of Life Cycle Management with Battelle, gave a presentation on the growing body of proactive environmental initiatives. Joseph began his presentation by sharing his desire to provide more pragmatic examples of the approaches currently being utilized by businesses today. He described the evolution of environmental management, as well as current industrial leaders in environmental health and safety (EH&S) issues. Some of the reasons given for perusing environmental management include adding financial value, reducing liabilities, strategic advantage and maintaining brand image. Examples of the innovative approaches currently being utilized include:

Joseph suggested that all of these examples may be utilized alone or in combination to create environmental and financial win-win situations for companies. He specifically noted that Environmental Management Systems (EMS) are not included on the list because he does not consider them to be innovative. He also noted that extended producer responsibility did not appear on the list as he considered it to be a doctrine related to a legal or moral responsibility, rather than an approach. 

Next, he reviewed various examples of successful programs including the 3M Corporations 3P (“Pollution Prevention Pays”) program and  Kodak Corporation’s FunSaver™ Camera. He described eco-efficient production as reducing the physical footprint of a product by simplifying inputs and creating less waste. He described the incorporation of concerns about sustainability by the Ford Motor Corporation in their manufacturing process and campus into their financial bottom line at their Rouge Park, Dearborn facility. This led Joseph to describe the concept of stakeholder value, where an undertaking adds value at multiple levels including society at large, the enterprise itself, and shareholders. He then went on to describe environmental accounting as an examination of a product lifecycle, which includes such undertakings as seeking reductions in waste against product costs. Next, Joseph explained that Industrial Ecology involves finding ways to have one industry’s by-products be used as another’s raw materials. He added that the cement industry, including the Portland Cement Association present at today’s meeting, has invested over $4 million in this area. 

Next, Joseph compared conventional design for the environment and green chemistry. He highlighted that green chemistry encourages the reformulation of the chemical constituents of a product. Joseph also provided examples of companies such as DuPont, Monsanto, Rohm & Haas, and Dow Chemical that have utilized this approach to product development. At this point, Joseph undertook to describe Value Based Management. He suggested that eco-efficiency can lead to an increased economic bottom line; for example, waste reduction can equal financial improvement. 

Joseph described the historical barriers to the adoption of these innovative ideas. He explained that often these types of ideas are pioneered by individuals isolated within organizations, and further suggested that the GLBTS could play a role in assisting these companies. He also provided historical examples of opportunities where companies that have been able to work with their supply chains, to illustrate the expansive potential of these progressive undertakings. 

Andy asked if the innovations Joseph described had prompted similar innovations in competitors. Joseph responded by explaining that in the auto sector General Motors first began to work with its supply chain, then Ford and Chrysler followed this practice. He described that often a company experiences both a desire to collaborate and a desire to compete – to assist their peers, publish their success stories, but at the same time try and achieve a competitive advantage. Gary wanted to know if companies that have adopted innovative approaches are doing better than their competitors. Joseph suggested that a comparison of the top ten environmental performers in any sector would compare favorably because there is a strong correlation between doing a good job environmentally and being a well-managed company. Jim Downes inquired about the use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Joseph suggested that LCA has been a costly process that has not always produced the desired results, and that modified LCA processes have been developed and are being utilized. 

Joseph summarized his talk by describing drivers and barriers facing companies today. He suggested that, when the economy is tight, companies have limited discretionary funds available. Conversely, when the economy is favorable, they have limited time. He suggested that innovative approaches could provide companies with a mandate to pursue environmental achievement that will go beyond the scope of the GLBTS. In closing he suggested that the group discuss the following question: Does it make sense to move forward with innovative approaches as a tool to move the strategy forward? 

Facilitated Discussion of Innovative Approaches  

Dale began the discussion by questioning the need for the GLBTS specifically to focus on  innovative approaches. Joseph suggested that the Integration Group should consider both the goals and objectives of the GLBTS and those of the many industries in the Great Lakes basin in order to evaluate whether or not innovative approaches would assist in the achievement of these goals. Danny suggested that we should also turn attention to the ability of small and medium sized businesses to take actions towards toxics reductions. Allan Jones suggested that the GLBTS approach potential partners with a set of objectives and describe potential partnership actions. 

Andy cautioned that use of the term ‘innovative approaches’ should not imply that traditional approaches are/were unsuccessful. He commented that the consideration of innovative approaches has generated a lot of new thinking, but expressed concern that there might be a gap between this information and how it could be applied to work undertaken by the GLBTS. Joseph suggested that a potential role for the GLBTS could be to work with like-minded individuals within companies to legitimize the efforts of these individuals by facilitating learning opportunities inside and across organizations, and that the GLBTS could also provide opportunities for information sharing and reduction opportunities. 

Susan Nameth suggested that the group look at the learning opportunities presented by the introduction of innovative approaches, and take the opportunity to inform and support those who are not aware of these approaches. She also suggested that the group consider which of the approaches could be used by the substance-specific workgroups to achieve substance reductions. Jim Downes recommended that the identification of substances of concern should come from the efforts to date of the substance-specific workgroups. He further recommended that when multiple sources are identified in a sector, the GLBTS should be prepared to proceed with a “tool kit” of resources that includes both innovative and traditional approaches. 

George Kuper expressed concern about the order of the undertakings of the sector subgroup. He suggested that a specific problem should be identified before information is gathered. George also expressed concern about the nomenclature ”innovative approaches”, and about the ability of the members of the GLBTS to provide expertise in innovative approaches without contractor support. 

Alan Waffle suggested that the ultimate decision to use an innovative approach would be undertaken by individual companies. He recommended that the GLBTS create an opportunity to suggest the use of these innovative approaches. He further commented that the communication of the efforts and undertakings of the sectors or individual companies is critical to the GLBTS. Tony Kislauskas wondered what value the GLBTS could add to a sector or to an industry within a sector that is financially struggling and is producing a substance of concern to the GLBTS. Joseph suggested that companies that have not attempted to make any efforts have likely not done so for reasons. He recommended that the subgroup engage companies that are more culturally open to making these efforts. He suggested that the GLBTS look for companies currently engaged in some innovative practices and attempt to create benefits for the GLBTS within existing undertakings. He felt that the GLBTS could provide assistance to progressive individuals making isolated progress within their companies, by creating links with other interested companies. He also suggested that small and medium sized enterprises offered many opportunities for engagement in reduction initiatives. 

Alexis Cain suggested that the GLBTS could provide recognition for companies already making reductions by publicizing their efforts, results, and participation. George expressed concern over the lack of publicity that is currently being generated by the GLBTS. He suggested that more was needed. Joseph suggested that it is important for the GLBTS to  recognize and publicize results. He further suggested that it is also important for the GLBTS to provide assistance to those in need in order to achieve these results. Danny agreed with this suggestion, adding that the governments may want to find ways to market these ideas and find partners to help promote them. Andy described this as an area of enormous potential. He suggested that a more strategic and rapid publicity campaign should to be created, and that a potential role for the GLBTS could be to assist companies struggling to make environmental progress in order to promote shared learning. He further suggested that the GLBTS could ask Joseph back to help create this strategy. Joseph recommended that the Integration Group  collaboratively undertake any planning process. Keith Hanson suggested that the focus and emphasis  be on the creation of a toolbox rather than on the ideal application of an innovative approach. He suggested creating an information package to disseminate information to programs like the LaMPs. John Jackson suggested that the GLBTS  play a role in the communication of real examples of reduction initiatives. He further suggested that the governments could use programs like Environmental Leaders to help companies set goals and be recognized for achieving their goals. 

Joe Stearns suggested that the GLBTS consider undertaking an innovative approach with a company in need of solving a specific problem, by preparing to use the tools earlier described by Joseph. He cautioned the group against promoting only a tool, as opposed to a larger strategy for solving problems. Danny agreed that a potential role for the GLBTS could be to create a toolbox to assist other undertakings such as LaMP’s. Gary Gulezian suggested that the GLBTS could move forward as a virtual consulting firm featuring the expertise of ENGO’s and industry, providing information and reduction services to companies. John Jackson commented that the goal of the GLBTS is to work towards  virtual elimination, which includes making sure that GLBTS substances are eliminated throughout the life of a product and not just within the confines of the industrial facility. Jim Downes expressed the opinion that when a problem is identified the owner or creator of the problem should also be identified and required to find a solution. John Jackson responded by suggesting that the entity that creates the product should take responsibility because they are in a position to be able to do so. Andy suggested that the GLBTS focus on opportunities to create win-win situations, like toxic substances reductions, when such can increase shareholder value. 

James observed that it had been suggested that consideration of innovative approaches be incorporated into existing GLBTS mechanisms, including the substance-specific workgroups and the sector subgroup, rather than forming a new workgroup to focus on these approaches. John Menkedick observed that the group had come to the agreement that we should first focus on the problem, then consider the introduction of an innovative approach. He suggested that the group take some time to gather more information and a greater understanding of innovative approaches. Gary Gulezian suggested that the substance-specific workgroup leaders canvas companies that have used an innovative approach and compile and develop case studies of these undertakings. 

Susan Nameth suggested that the GLBTS sponsor informational workshops on innovative approaches. Steve Rosenthal suggested that information from the substance-specific workgroups, in combination with Battelle’s knowledge, could be utilized in the development of such workshops. Gary expressed the concern that before considering a workshop on innovative approaches the GLBTS should inventory the problems facing the strategy, and the approaches available. Keith Hanson suggested that in order to move the Strategy forward the group would need to decide on the role that the Integration Group would play in relation to innovative approaches. He asked the Integration Group to consider internal informational workshops on innovative approaches. Tony suggested that the GLBTS target a specific industry or sector that is not achieving reductions on a pilot basis for an innovative approach. 

Gary inquired about the extent to which Integration Group members who represent industry would be willing to assist with the process of identifying potential targets for the GLBTS. George responded by suggesting that industry had limited memory of processes it used to achieve a goal once the goal was achieved. He further added that questions posed to industry should be directed at determining whether they have advice to offer others to accomplish their reduction goals. 

James drew the session to a close by suggesting that the USEPA and Environment Canada reflect upon the excellent discussion generated today and consider how it can move the GLBTS forward. 

Additional Agenda Item – Discussion of Status of Communication Strategy   

George had made an earlier request to include a discussion of the communications strategy. He opened the discussion by calling attention to need to update the GLBTS web site and produce a GLBTS newsletter. E Marie informed the group that work is currently being undertaken on both the web site and on a newsletter. George recommended that a professional communications firm be contracted to undertake the task of creating and implementing a communications strategy for the GLBTS. Danny described that a communication plan had been developed which would require approximately $126,000to implement, but that such a sum was not currently available. He advised the group that he would seriously consider the communication needs of the GLBTS. He will report back to the Integration Group at the meeting in November. Alan Waffle offered to assist Danny in this undertaking. 

Additional Agenda Item – Status of the IJC review of the GLBTS 

Dale informed the group that the IJC had completed its review, which had included input from many Integration Group members. The report will first be presented at the Water Quality Board and will then be presented to the IJC in the upcoming meeting in Montreal in early September. The report will also be available on the IJC’s web site at www.ijc.org Exit disclaimer.  Dale summarized that the report highlighted the collaborative efforts of the GLBTS, cited variations in the expectations of participants, and identified gaps in data. 

Planning for November Meetings 

Danny began the discussion by asking participants to make any suggestions or comments on the traditional format of these meetings. George suggested that the primary focus of the meeting  be on the reports of the substance-specific workgroups. It was also suggested that the workgroup sessions  be scheduled so as not to create a conflict with either the Stakeholder Forum or the Integration Group. A report on the status of the IJC was requested as a potential agenda item. 

Danny suggested that the GLBTS consider hosting future meetings in locations other than Toronto and Chicago. He suggested that meetings could be held in conjunction with LaMP meetings. Danny will look into the logistical implications of hosting meetings in other locations. 

James thanked all participants for their efforts during this productive meeting, and the meeting was adjourned.

Attendees

Allan Jones, C4
Ann Dougherty, PCA
Susan Nameth, Environment Canada
Alexis Cain, EPA,
Joe Stearns, CCC,
Keith Hanson, Minnesota Power
Anthony Kizlauskas, USEPA,
Tony Martig, USEPA,
Dale Phenicie, CGLI,
Joseph Stepun, WLSSD,
Joseph Fiksel, Battelle,
David P. Marcarus, USEPA,
Jim Downs, Solutia Inc.
Tom Barnett, Ispat Inland
Gary Allie, Ispat Inland		 John Menkedick, Battelle
George Kuper, CGLI
Laura Nazef, USEPA-GLNPO
Karen Yang, Environment Canada
Rita Cestaric, USEPA
Alan Waffle, Environment Canada
Danny Epstein, Environment Canada
Gary Gulezian, USEPA-GLNPO
E. Marie Phillips, USEPA
Dennis Leonard, Detroit Edison
Andy Buchsbaum, NWF
John Jackson, GLU
Steve Rosenthal, USEPA

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.