Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

GLBTS Links

______________________

Integration

Stakeholders Meeting - November 19, 1999
Draft Summary of Integration Group Meeting
Hyatt Regency Hotel - Chicago, Illinois

Welcome And Introductions

Martha Prothro, the meeting facilitator, opened the meeting. As each individual introduced him/herself, they gave their perception of how the previous day’s stakeholder meeting went. All had positive reactions to the meeting, especially the increased focus on actions to reduce PBT releases and good participation by industry.

Ron Shimizu stated he was pleased with the stakeholder meeting. In particular, he found the decision tree process useful, and sees value in coordinating with other government programs and in enhanced coordination with Mexico.

Gary Gulezian also stressed getting the message out beyond the Great Lakes Basin. He believes that the BNS Strategy has raised expectations and therefore needs to follow through with actions.

Progress on Action Items

Dioxin, OCS & HCB Work Groups
Gary Gulezian reviewed the decision not to combine the Dioxin, OCS & HCB work groups but to hold them consecutively. Most IG members felt that the work groups did not have enough time. Proposals for how to address this included shortening the morning session and increasing the time for the work groups; extending the work group meetings to be held over two days; holding evening meetings; holding meetings closer to the airport; and focusing on being efficient in the meetings (and focusing on action items in particular). Concern was raised over shortening the plenary session in light of needing to ensure sufficient involvement by the public. Gary Gulezian and Ron Shimizu will take the feedback and come back to the February IG meeting with options.

Incineration and PCP Workshops
Gary Gulezian announced that planning for the Incineration Workshop will begin in earnest in December. Volunteers identified at the last meeting included:

Andy Buchsbaum
Margaret Wooster
George Kuper (to recruit additional industry participants)
Joe Stepun
Sam Sasnett
Marianne Lines
Mike Murray
Rita Cestaric - U.S. Lead
Alan Waffle - Canadian Lead

Participants discussed whether open burning should be part of the workshop. Of those commenting, most believed that it should not be part of the workshop. Source separation was identified as being part of the agenda for the workshop.

One participant stressed that the focus of the workshop will drive the results, and that the workshop should draw out new creative approaches rather than focus on current solutions.

Participants discussed the need to recruit utilities and municipalities, for both the planning and the holding of the workshop.

Gary Gulezian noted that EPA also has a strong interest in a PCP workshop. The Pesticides, HCB, and Dioxin Workgroups will be involved. He recommended that the PCP workshop be a topic for the next IG meeting. Ron Shimizu proposed that the work group leaders give an update at the meeting.

Level II Substances
Gary Gulezian announced that a report on U.S. actions on Level II substances is being developed and is expected to be posted on the web in late November. He stated that the pesticide workgroup will begin consideration of Level II substances from a pollution prevention perspective. One meeting participant reported that the heaviest focus in the pesticide work group meeting was on PCP, and that a PCP workshop may be held. Tributyl tin and Lindane were also discussed, but they are being addressed by other programs and the work group decided to monitor those efforts. Concern was raised by an IG member that discussion on Level II substances will result in a de facto elevation to Level I. However the BNS commitment to pollution prevention for Level Two substances is also important. One participant inquired about the possibility of including flame retardants in the BNS.

Web Postings, Annual Progress Report, and Other Issues
GLNPO reported that it is making efforts to improve the timeliness of web postings and reorganize the web site.

December 15th is the expected release date of the draft annual progress report.

There will be a responsiveness summary to Step 1 and 2 reports posed on the web, as well as a public listing of all comments.

There was discussion and a call from several participants for greater coordination with other programs and efforts (such as U.S.PBTI and CEC). Related to this was discussion of remediation of sediment resulting in volitization of toxaphene in Brunswick, Georgia, which is an example of assessing how the Great Lakes Region is impacted by actions in other Regions.

Long-Range Transport (LRT)
Alan Waffle gave a short presentation of the status of the LRT effort. He is hopeful that Environment Canada will have a literature review completed by the end of the calendar year, and mentioned that he can get copies of their report on LRT for those who request it.

Promoting Further Progress

To stimulate discussion on how the IG might add value to work group efforts, Dan Hopkins handed out and explained tables providing examples of pollution prevention or voluntary reduction opportunities. Discussion initially focused on how to comment on the contents of the table. Concern was raised over where the information came from and whether inclusion in the table represented a statement of consensus on actions. Particular concern was raised over the “PVC product phase out” opportunity listed under Medical Waste Incinerators under Dioxin in Table 1, which led to a vigorous discussion. Gary Gulezian explained that the tables were intended to present examples and spur discussions, and are not intended as a formal finding or commitment document. A suggestion was made by some IG members that the matrix be considered an IG working document only, not to be passed out, and that a process be established to make sure that there is work group input into creation of documents. Others expressed concern that some members were standing in the way of or making inadequate contributions to progress in reducing PBT releases.

Work group leaders who were present identified the following ways in which the IG could assist work group efforts:

a strategy for addressing sectors
support on sediments
support on incineration
education and awareness outreach package
communication of cost savings or cost-effectiveness of reduction efforts
recognition of success stories.
promote efforts to fill data gaps
promote coordination with other initiatives
clean production workshop
recruit representatives of chlorinated solvents, pesticide manufacturers, hydrochloric acid and other chemical manufacturers
scientific work to help determine when emissions are low enough (e.g., scientific panel on closure)
money to support region-wide wood stove changeout

Martha Prothro, facilitator, called for commitments to specific potential IG actions by IG members. Building on the table of opportunities presented by Dan Hopkins, IG attendees suggested possibilities for IG actions. At lunch, IG attendees indicated which of the proposed activities they would volunteer for. A complete list of action items brainstormed at the meeting by all IG members, and the participants who volunteered to share responsibility for them, is attached.

Meeting participants discussed the need to recruit more utilities, incinerator operators, municipalities, and others. Gary Gulezian stated that there has been a fall-off in utility participation. Some meeting participants expressed concern over CGLI’s effectiveness in contributing to recruitment and to creative solutions. CGLI disagreed with this concern and noted that they are very supportive of the BNS as a voluntary effort.

At the end of this agenda item, Ron Shimizu asked that the potential IG actions be reviewed to make sure they are not already being done by any of the work groups or by others in government. Gary Gulezien recommended that the next IG meeting focus on a few issues in a more structured way to ensure that there is time to discuss them adequately and that actions are taken on them.

Communications Campaign

Sandro Leonardelli and E. Marie Phillips gave a presentation on the draft communications plan. The impetus for developing a communications plan came in January 1999 when the IG subcommittee on communications was asked to develop such a plan. One of the first steps taken by the subcommittee was to conduct a survey of work group co-leads, CGLI and NWF. Results of the survey were used to develop a draft strategy. The subcommittee presented the initial draft strategy at the August IG meeting and asked for comments. The strategy was revised based on the limited comments received.

The revised draft strategy was then presented to the IG. Subcommittee representatives stated that, while developed as a broad strategy with a wide variety of tactics and tools, its primary value will be in selecting appropriate tools and applying them to specific work group reduction projects. Subcommittee members also stressed that the list of projects in the strategy is an initial list and not intended to be a final or comprehensive inventory of projects. Sandro Leonardelli recommended that the first few sections of the strategy be eliminated because the message and audience would vary depending on the specific projects undertaken.

Comments on the draft strategy included the following.

the plan must set out specific objectives so that the purpose of any particular activity or product (e.g., a newsletter ) will be clear;
the unique nature of the BNS must be communicated to draw media attention;
an understanding of the baseline is needed to determine the most important communication/outreach actions;
the strategy’s goals should be clarified (e.g., assisting work groups in meeting their objectives and getting more visibility for BNS);
the communications plan should not only support the work groups, but also handle overarching communication needs;
an outreach strategy, more than a communications strategy, is what is needed;
effort should be devoted to getting members of the marketing industry involved in the project;
success stories that illustrate the desired “messages” should be identified;
the strategy should include ways to amplify and propagate the success stories (e.g., take the steel mill agreement to American Iron and Steel Institute to get similar agreements);
success stories are important not only for the public but for others including EPA HQ;
the strategy in general may be trying to do too much;
the governments must put more resources into the communications budget - it can’t be done “on the cheap”;
a campaign to reach the general public (e.g., regarding residential wood combustion and open burning) is more complex and more expensive than direct outreach to industry, and the NGOs are not prepared to undertake such a campaign;
one way to reach the public might be through utilities and municipalities - another reason to recruit more participation from them;
a new list of projects has been developed that may be more current than the list in the draft strategy;
some near-term, straight-forward activities can be undertaken, such as a press release for the BNS progress report.

All IG members were asked once again to review the draft strategy and provide specific written comments. Comments should be sent to E. Marie Phillips (phillips.emarie@epa.gov).

Next Steps

The following were identified as agenda items for the February IG meeting.

EC and EPA will identify options for the next stakeholder meeting regarding workgroup times, length and combinations (specifically for the dioxin, HCB and OCS work groups). These options will be presented for IG review at its February meeting.
The IG subgroup on the Incineration Workshop will discuss plans for the workshop at the February IG meeting. The plans will consider the following IG recommendations:

front-end separation, recycling, and division of the waste streams

efficient incineration and alternatives to incineration

cross-media issues associated with incineration

drawing out creativity

recruitment of industry to help plan the workshop

Other agenda items identified by members for consideration for the February agenda included:

Sediments

Sponsoringa PCP workshop

Communications

Long range transport/international activities

Follow-up on the list of “Potential Actions to Promote Further Progress” (attached)

Presentation on a cross-matrix of sectors/substances

The next IG meeting is February 15 and will be held in Windsor,Ontario.

Attendees

Frank Anscombe, US EPA—GLNPO
Marty Bratzel, International Joint Commission
Werner Braun, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Rita Cestaric, US EPA Region 5
Stephane Gingras, Great Lakes United
Gary Gulezian, US EPA—GLNPO
Darryl Hogg, Environment Canada
Dan Hopkins, US EPA Region 5
John Jackson, Great Lakes United and Lake Superior Forum
George H. Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Sandro Leonardelli, Environment Canada
Marianne Lines, Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention
David Macarus, US EPA Region 5
G. Tracy Mehan, MDEQ
Susan Nameth, Environment Canada
Dale K. Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
E. Marie Phillips, US EPA—GLNPO
Elizabeth Rezek, Environment Canada
Sam Sasnett, US EPA
Griff Sherbin, Environment Canada
Ron Shimizu, Environment Canada
Deborah Sievers, US EPA—GLNPO
Joseph Stepun, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Vicki Thomas, US EPA—GLNPO
Beverly Thorpe, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Alan Waffle, Environment Canada
Guy Williams, National Wildlife Federation
Margaret Wooster, State University College at Buffalo
Alain Chung, Environment Canada
Fardin Oliaei, Minnesota PCA
Jim Smith, Environment Canada
Alexandra McPherson, Great Lakes United
Karen Yang, Environment Canada
Bob Olsgard, Lake Superior Alliance
Martha Prothro, Ross & Associates (Facilitator)
John Menkedick, Battelle (Facilitator)