Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholders Forum -Toronto, Ontario 

Integration Workgroup
Meeting Summary
February 16, 2006

Welcome & Introductions

James McKenzie (McKenzieParis, Inc.), facilitator for the meeting, welcomed all participants to the Integration Workgroup meeting of the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS).  Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and Danny Epstein, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada (EC), welcomed everyone to Windsor and provided opening remarks.
 

Stakeholder Activity Updates

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

Rachel Heckl of Great Lakes United (GLU) described a report, co-authored by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) and Environmental Defence Canada.  The report analyzes similarities in the data reported to Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) and U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).  She brought copies of the report.  The report can also be found at www.pollutionwatch.org Exit disclaimer.  Rachel also reported that GLU is launching a study of the electronics waste recycling industry.  She brought flyers describing this effort. 

Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Short-Term Projects

Ted Smith (U.S. EPA) described several short-term projects coming out of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC) Toxic Pollutant Strategy, and implications for the GLBTS.  

GLRC Toxic Pollutant Strategy Near-term Projects: 

Discussion

Dale Phenicie (CGLI) commented on the use of TRI information. He cautioned that care should be taken in understanding TRI information before trying to make use out of it.  

Regarding the development of a report on best practices in U.S. municipalities and cities, Danny Epstein commented that perhaps we should consider looking at it as a binational product.  He noted that the municipal sector on both sides of the border has contributed to reductions of GLBTS substances.  A binational product could be used to engage additional municipalities. Gary Gulezian asked what kind of coordination exists between the two national programs related to burn barrels/open burning.  Ted Smith replied that the U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is very supportive of the Burn Barrel Initiative. He was not certain about the Canadian perspective.

George Kuper asked how the substance workgroups would integrate with these initiatives. Ted responded that the some workgroups would play a leadership role in these initiatives, but there may not be a role for all of the workgroups. George was most interested in the Chemical Screening and Analytical Methods Project and asked how the GLBTS could be involved in that project. Ted responded that the project is currently analyzing a great deal of new information, unlike the national Canadian DSL and U.S. HPV programs. George expressed concern about reaching conclusions ahead of the national programs.

Jennifer Vincent (EC) commented that Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) are a good vehicle to help with the communication process.  Also, the major cities in Ontario are predominantly located within areas of concern. Canadian municipalities are very engaged with areas of concern and often have good existing contacts through that program. Ted emphasized the intention for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Toxic Pollutant Initiative to be interactive rather than to propose solutions to problems that do not exist.  

Michael Murray of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) noted that one of the U.S. programs employed in the Chemical Screening and Analytical Methods Project is limited to high production volume chemicals.  As a result, it is possible that there are chemicals that are not seen in this chemical screening project.  Mike noted that TRI and NPRI are also limited.  That is, we do not know that all key chemical releases are being monitored.  Ted suggested that we might want to pursue a more detailed discussion to understand the types of chemicals being monitored in the Chemical Screening and Analytical Methods Project.

Green Chemistry Program

Representing Great Lakes United, Lin Kaat Chary presented information on “Green Chemistry”.  Lin explained that Green Chemistry could be considered in the context of the GLBTS because legacy contaminants are huge in number.  New and continuing toxic inputs are also being seen in fairly significant amounts (mercury, halogenated flame retardants, perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFAS), and others).  We need to ensure that screening programs are working to demonstrate the sentinel substances that are beginning to show up in the Great Lakes.

Lin recalled that the International Joint Commission (IJC), in its “Priorities Executive Summary for 2003- 2005” summarizing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA, or Agreement), points out chemicals that are not covered by the GLWQA but are important to observe, nonetheless.  She suggested that the GLBTS expand its horizons in terms of understanding how to address those issues.

Lin presented a graph prepared by Paul Anastas showing the increase in environmental regulation in the U.S. from 1870 to 2000.  A sharp upward trend is seen beginning around 1970. Lin also discussed the economics of regulation in the U.S.  According to Paul Anastas (2006), U.S. industry expenditures on environmental controls (i.e., compliance with regulation, waste treatment, etc.) are approximately 2% of GDP or $200 billion per year (USD).  Lin suggested that, along with the graph, these economics are drivers for the science of Green Chemistry, and that the way we currently deal with environmental controls has not always been the cheapest or most efficient approach to these issues. 

Lin explained that a tremendous disconnect between how chemicals are created and their effects upon the environment is evident in traditional curriculums.  Green Chemistry seeks to change that by integrating a cradle-to-grave understanding into chemical engineering curriculums. 

The principles of Green Chemistry and Green Engineering provide a framework for scientists and engineers to use when designing new materials, products, processes, and systems.  Lin reviewed the 12 principles of Green Chemistry:

  1. Prevent waste
  2. Design safer chemicals and products
  3. Design less hazardous chemical syntheses
  4. Use renewable feedstocks
  5. Use catalysts, not stoichiometric reagents
  6. Avoid chemical derivatives
  7. Maximize atom economy
  8. Use safer solvents and reaction conditions
  9. Increase energy efficiency
  10. Design chemicals and products to degrade after use
  11. Analyze in real time to prevent pollution
  12. Minimize the potential for accidents

These principles are also available on the Internet at www.epa.gov/greenchemistry.  Green Chemistry promotes efficiency in the production process, which creates more profit and less cost in terms of cleanup and subsequent regulation.

Lin proposed questions for consideration by the Integration Workgroup:

Lin proposed that the Integration Workgroup sponsor roundtables to discuss the above questions and other issues, such as: (1) where is Green Chemistry being applied, (2) what is its market potential, and (3) what industry innovations have been developed?  Lin felt that GLBTS roundtables would be helpful for all concerned, and she expressed a desire to initiate them within the Integration Workgroup. 

Lin presented additional resources (primarily websites) that provide information about the applications of Green Chemistry.

Discussion

Following Lin’s presentation, Dale Phenicie suggested that the Integration Workgroup discuss Green Chemistry further and identify examples of how it has been applied. Lin agreed and suggested that we make sure that everyone is on the same page with respect to the definition of Green Chemistry. Lin noted that the fundamental issue is to change the design of the engineering process.

Gary Gulezian agreed that the GLBTS is the place to discuss moving forward on Green Chemistry, including within some existing workgroups. One potential next step would be to ask workgroup leads to consider how Green Chemistry relates to their particular chemicals, remaining sources, and methods of reduction. 

Anita Wong (EC) requested clarification on the difference between P2 and Green Chemistry. Lin replied that Green Chemistry is part of the P2 concept―the ultimate front-of-pipe solution. Anita was unclear on what else was needed to include Green Chemistry in the workgroups. 

Ted Smith suggested that Green Chemistry components have been, and continue to be, incorporated into the GLBTS.  For example, Ted recalled that the head of U.S. EPA’s Design-for-Environment program spoke at the last GLBTS meeting; this person is working with the furniture industry to figure out how furniture can be designed to minimize the use of brominated flame retardants. 

Allan Jones (Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council) observed that the issue is not looking at the intrinsic hazard of a substance (e.g., something that burns), but looking at the negative impact a substance has on the environment (human health or ecosystem).  The impact of Green Chemistry is that it helps the chemical to serve its purpose without unduly affecting other things.  Allan suggested that we need to better understand chemical pathways and their breakdown. 

Dave Macarus (U.S. EPA) suggested that the Integration Workgroup exists because there has not been Green Chemistry in the past.  One of U.S. EPA’s strongest regulatory programs is the pesticide program.  Dave noted that products that are as persistent or toxic as any of the chemicals on the GLBTS list are no longer commercially available.  Industry looks for the perfect product:  one that does its job quickly and degrades rapidly in the environment.  Dave suggested that, as a group, the Integration Workgroup would greatly support moving Green Chemistry forward.  Lin added that part of the process also focuses on the creation of a chemical.  The fact that a chemical like chlordane can no longer be registered drives the process for developing chemicals that are less hazardous. 

Michael Murray observed that, even with Green Chemistry, a zero impact chemical cannot be attained. However, efforts to reduce use of a chemical can be pursued regardless of the chemical being used. This is the P2 approach.  Mike suggested that Green Chemistry will be one part of the larger context in which we need to consider this process.

Raymond Vaughan (New York State Attorney General's Office) proposed that the GLBTS consider a pair of presentations at a future meeting – one on Green Chemistry actions already taken by industry, and another by Paul Anastas or another expert on the meaning of Green Chemistry.
 

Report out on SOLEC Workshop

Dale Phenicie (CGLI) summarized the proceedings of a State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) Chemical Integrity Workshop held in November of 2005.  Dale serves on the SOLEC steering committee.

Dale explained that, in 2000, the SOLEC steering committee began a series of programs to examine the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the Great Lakes.  With SOLEC 2006, the committee is at the end of that journey.  SOLEC 2006, which will occur on November 1-3, 2006, will examine chemical integrity. 

Six speakers framed the relevant issues at the November 2005 Chemical Integrity Workshop.  Breakout sessions were held to discuss what we know and what we still need to learn in order to characterize chemical integrity.

The SOLEC steering committee is preparing to launch SOLEC 2006 from workshop proceedings and background papers that have yet to be produced.  The committee is also planning a program consisting of plenary presentations and breakout discussion sessions.  Once conclusions regarding the state of Great Lakes chemical integrity are synthesized, the committee may publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal. 

Dale also presented some of the findings discussed during the 2005 Chemical Integrity Workshop, including a definition of chemical integrity, themes and issues that resulted from the discussions, and additional issues about chemical integrity and ecosystems that need to be understood.  During the workshop, the issues of human health, exposure scenarios, overall risk, and ideas for how SOLEC can assist with the management aspects of chemical integrity were also discussed.  Dale concluded his presentation by discussing the steps needed to finish the work in anticipation of SOLEC 2006 (November 1-3). 

Discussion

Lin Kaatz Chary noted that Dale’s presentation highlights the different world views on chemicals.  One view focuses on risk and exposure, while the other focuses on hazard.  The difference is important because it drives where attention and resources are allocated.  One view emphasizes risk management rather than risk reduction.  Lin suggested that the Integration Workgroup has the opportunity to examine which model is most useful for understanding new chemicals.  Lin advocated the hazard model, noting that a focus on exposure and risk obscures the hazard until many years later, which demonstrates the antithesis of the precautionary approach.  Lin believes that the precautionary approach is at the heart of the GLWQA. 

Raymond Vaughan asked about SOLEC’s level of interest in areas that may be potential early warnings, such as a highly skewed sex ratio on the Aamjinaang reserve, and the recognition of Dechlorane Plus in Great Lakes and environmental media.  Dale replied that he was unaware of any specific discussion of either of those points.

Dave Macarus commented that the term chemical integrity gets to the heart of ecosystem health. Dale responded that the SOLEC process gets credit for taking an ecosystem approach. 

Jennifer Vincent (EC) noted that, at the SOLEC workshop, there was a discussion of the issue that Lin raised, and the SOLEC committee decided to focus on reaction vs. absolute prevention. Jennifer also responded to Ray Vaughan’s comment regarding the Chippewa Sarnia program, which falls under the Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) and the St. Clair River Remedial Action Plan. Jennifer stated that EC is aware of the problem and is actively working with the Chippewa to address their concerns. 

Danny Epstein asked whether there is still time and opportunity within the SOLEC structure to take Lin’s recommendation under advisement and discuss Green Chemistry.  Dale responded that a panel on Green Chemistry could be arranged on day three of SOLEC 2006.  Danny then asked whether the timing of SOLEC provides an opportunity to discuss how substances are handled or other information that could be useful to the GLWQA review process.  Mark Elster suggested that perhaps SOLEC could consider Agreement-related discussions on the third day.

Ted Smith explained that, when the SOLEC workshop was planned, the chemicals were divided into what was known and not known about them.  With regard to emerging chemicals, there is much more that is not known, including potential health impacts.  As a result, this issue will be a focal point in November (SOLEC 2006). 

Gary Gulezian noted that the indicator model that SOLEC uses is the pressure/state/response model.  The model tracks both the pressures on the environment and the resulting state of the environment to see what relationships exist. Considering that information, SOLEC can perhaps address what the proper policy response is, for example, with respect to Virtual Elimination (VE) and the precautionary principle.  Gary recognized that there are differing positions within the Integration Workgroup.

Report out on Binational Executive Committee Meeting Presentation

Danny Epstein (EC) summarized the outcomes of the Binational Executive Committee (BEC) meeting held on February 8-9, 2006.  Danny presented the summary of GLBTS management assessment reports for Level 1 substances to BEC at its February meeting.  His presentation also included progress made since the signing of the Binational Toxics Strategy and proposed paths forward for the GLBTS. 

Danny reviewed the slides that were presented to BEC.  These included a quick review of the management assessment process (framework) that was followed for the Level 1 substances, the findings, and recommendations for management options.  Danny explained that BEC was provided information in terms of the important components of the GLBTS from our perspective. 

The recommendations for paths forward, presented to BEC, included finishing the job (virtual elimination of existing GLBTS Level 1 substances and P2 actions for Level 2 substances; 10th anniversary workshop in 2007), and exploring in the context of the GLWQA review:

BEC supported a GLBTS 10th anniversary workshop in 2007. BEC also expressed general support for exploring a number of roles that the GLBTS can play in the future, which need to be assessed in the context of the GLWQA review.  There was no discussion at the BEC meeting about what those opportunities may be.  The information presented was meant to provide the basis for further discussion among those who are forging agreements and other stakeholders. Danny expressed hope that the issue will be discussed further at the present meeting.

Discussion

George Kuper noted a discrepancy between Danny’s slides and the information he gave to the BEC.  George pointed out that the GLWQA calls for disseminating information but Danny implied that the GLBTS would work more heavily with national assessment programs.  Danny replied that the national assessment programs referred to are continuing and that the outcome of those programs that may affect the GLBTS. 

Lin Kaatz Chary asked what, if any, role the GLBTS is playing in the current Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Treaty discussion.  Danny replied that the GLBTS is not participating in POPs Treaty discussions; as a group, the GLBTS has not been asked to formally submit anything.  Ted Smith clarified that the GLBTS is involved with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the POPs program in different ways.  For example, Alexis Cain (the U.S. Mercury Workgroup co-chair) has traveled to various UNEP workshops.  As far as the POPs Treaty is concerned, the U.S. and Canada participate as sovereign nations.  The GLBTS would not be a partner in that, per se.
 

Relevant GLWQA Chemical Articles and Annexes

Tricia Mitchell (EC) provided a brief overview of articles and annexes to the GLWQA that relate to persistent toxic substances (PTS).  The overview focused on the three articles and four annexes that address toxic substances most directly.

The annex also calls for the establishment of several monitoring programs related to PTS, an early warning system to anticipate future toxic substances problems, and biennial reporting on the progress of programs and measures to reduce the generation of contaminants.

Tricia noted that much of the GLBTS’ work already addresses several of the current GLWQA articles and annexes. Tricia reviewed four potential future directions for the GLBTS:

  1. Finishing the Job – continuing to work towards the virtual elimination of existing GLBTS Level 1 substances and P2 actions for Level 2 substances.
  2. Exploring the need for a Framework to identify and address new and emerging chemical threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem.
  3. Exploring the role for GLBTS in information dissemination.
  4. Increasing international outreach and coordination.

Tricia suggested that these be kept in mind in the context of the GLWQA review and in the afternoon discussions.

Dave Macarus inquired about the inclusion of lindane in Annex 1 and whether any other isomers of lindane were included. Alan Waffle (EC) clarified that all four isomers were included.
 

General Process of GLWQA Review

Mark Elster (U.S. EPA) provided a brief history of the GLWQA, beginning with the Boundary Waters Treaty established by the IJC in 1909.  Mark explained the goals of the GLWQA – to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem.  Mark also explained how the agreement has grown over time with the 1978 and 1987 revisions to the GLWQA of 1972.

Mark’s presentation listed all articles and annexes in the GLWQA, which includes 15 articles and 17 annexes.  Mark summarized the major provisions of the agreement:

The GLWQA includes a requirement that every six years, the U.S. and Canada undertake a review of the GLWQA, which is triggered by the release of every third biennial report of the IJC.  The last review began in 1998.  In 2000, the Parties determined that a formal update was not essential immediately and that resources would be better spent on implementing the relevant aspects of the Agreement.  Presently, based on findings of the 2004 review, it may be appropriate to revise the Agreement.  Revisions to the GLWQA would require formal discussions between the two countries’ agencies.  Updating the agreement would be a very significant undertaking. 

Mark summarized the general process that U.S. EPA will follow in conducting a review of the GLWQA.  The review process operates under the guiding principles of openness, transparency, and inclusiveness.  The Parties will ask the public to comment and identify key issues and to identify roles for the public in the review.  Stage 1, Design and Scope of the Review Process, has been completed.  A review process document (“Process Guide”) was finalized on January 6, 2006.  The Process Guide will be posted in French and English on www.binational.net Exit disclaimer by March 1, 2006.

Stage 2, Review and Analysis, will be conducted from March 2006 to October 2007.  Both governments have committed to launch the review in March 2006.  The first step is creating and activating an Agreement Review Committee (ARC), a steering committee that will take information developed by working groups and send it to BEC at a later date.  The second step is creating Review Working Groups (RWGs) and charging them with responsibilities.  RWGs are established and activated by ARC.  Mark briefly reviewed the responsibilities of RWGs and the membership of RWGs.

Mark also described Special Issue Working Groups, which will consider priority environmental issues (beginning with those identified in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Report).  Third party review of the IJC and BEC is to be accomplished through an initial workshop and follow-up.  

Immediate next steps in the review process include: creating and staffing ARC; ARC to determine types of RWGs to be formed; and BEC to determine RWG membership in coordination with ARC.

Timelines for Stage 2 from April through December 31, 2006, are as follows:

Mark presented GLWQA toxic substance-related goals and described specific objectives of Article IV/Annex 1.  He noted that members of the Integration Workgroup may have expertise related to these goals and objectives that will be helpful, particularly expertise relevant to the review of Level 1 chemicals. 

Mark then presented the status of progress in implementing Annexes 10, 12, and 15.  Annex 10, Hazardous Polluting Substances, requires the Parties to maintain lists of substances known to have toxic effects on aquatic and animal life, to maintain a list of substances potentially having such effects, and to continually revise these lists.  Mark reported that the Parties have not been keeping lists of such chemicals in the environment updated.  This issue must be thoroughly reviewed by the working groups.

Annex 12, Persistent Toxic Substances, calls for regulatory strategies for controlling or preventing the input of PTS to the Great Lakes system through methods such as programs, monitoring, an early warning system, human health action levels, research, and reporting.  Mark noted that these methods go beyond looking at effects.  Mark suggested that there are ways of making the Agreement more sensible and more applicable to current conditions.  For instance, all issues related to PTS were lumped into this one annex; Mark proposed that they could be split out.

Annex 15, Airborne Toxic Substances, calls for research, surveillance and monitoring, and pollution control measures to reduce the atmospheric deposition of toxic substances, particularly PTS.  Mark reported that monitoring of airborne toxics and other activities are being conducted, but that not all aspects of this annex are being addressed fully. 

Mark provided some recommendations for the GLBTS to coordinate with the GLWQA review.  He advised that the GLBTS:

Mark also suggested that 1) the GLWQA review schedule needs to consider the GLBTS review, 2) the review of Level 1 chemicals should be a major piece of the GLWQA review, and 3) a GLBTS review of other chemicals (e.g., new and emerging) also should be considered part of the GLWQA review process.

Mark stated that he would like to solicit advice and expertise on the RWGs.  Mark provided his contact information for anyone wanting to participate in the GLWQA review:  Telephone: (312) 886-3857, email: elster.mark@epa.gov.

Discussion

Allan Jones inquired about the special issue working groups and their charge to begin by looking at GLRC outcomes.  Specifically, he asked how EC is considering the special issue working group issues, whether EC is providing input on those issues, and whether that ties in to the Canada-Ontario Agreement.  Mark responded that the Parties are considering designating one special issue working group that would utilize a framework for each idea.  The special issue working group would take each of the nine areas under the GLRC and run it through the framework.  This avoids the need for nine separate working groups.  Gary clarified that the responsibility for working groups will be binational (i.e., a specific activity of both U.S. EPA and EC).  Mark added that the RWGs would be comprised of members from BEC agencies and volunteers from non-governmental agencies. 

Michael Murray asked for clarification regarding ARC’s intention to develop informational material for RWGs.  Mark explained that the RWGs will have materials to start from, rather than starting from scratch.  They will be provided questions to consider, along with findings from the 1998 review.  The ARC will also try to develop targeted guidance beyond those questions.  Mark noted that, once a group convenes, it may be hard to limit their thinking along the initial questions provided, and the RWG scope may broaden into other areas.  Mark clarified that RWGs will be free to consult outside information, but they will be required to adhere to a timeline and check-in points for delivering products to the ARC. 

George Kuper pointed out that, in the context of the whole GLWQA, Mark’s presentation represents one part of the Agreement:  toxics issues.  Mark added that other issues are included in the GLWQA review, and the purpose of the Agreement will be reviewed as well.

John Gannon (IJC), who attended the BEC meeting, recalled one comment concerning the purpose of the Agreement.  The comment was that there are overarching issues for the ARC to consider and provide guidance to the workgroups before they begin their work.  John also asked if it would be advantageous to specifically include the Integration Workgroup in the Agreement.  He noted that neither SOLEC nor the GLBTS is currently included.  Mark stated that there are many issues in the Agreement that the Parties need to be accountable for, and that there is great interest in determining, as part of the review, how the Parties are responding to those issues.  Lin Kaatz Chary commented that it is confusing to consider the GLBTS as separate from the Agreement because the GLBTS, from the beginning, was a direct outgrowth of the GLWQA.

Lou Pocalujka (Consumers Energy) inquired about the GLWQA requirement to conduct a monitoring program relative to atmospheric transport and deposition.  He asked if there has been any attempt to scope out the data needs and costs of such a monitoring program.  Mark replied that there is a program currently in place, the Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN), which analyzes air deposition of mercury and other chemicals.  Lou thought that perhaps more than IADN was needed to fulfill the GLWQA monitoring requirement.
 

Public Perspectives

John Gannon (IJC) provided some background on the GLWQA public consultation process.  John recalled that, after the 1998-1999 review, the Parties agreed not to revise the Agreement.  The IJC at that time wrote a letter saying that they did not think the Agreement needed to be revised and that the Parties should continue to implement it.  Since then, after hearing from constituents that the Agreement is outdated and no longer driving programs, the IJC commissioners prepared a one-page declaration in 2003 stating that the Agreement required a thorough review, and the IJC would like to be a part of that review.  John noted that such a declaration was quite a departure for the IJC. 

Public participation has been one of the strengths of the process.  The IJC gathered a steering committee representing various constituencies and held 14 public consultations (seven on each side of the border).  They were able to hold more consultations than originally planned due to the cooperation of Great Lakes mayors.  A report summarizing the public consultations has been completed and will be released in mid-March.  The report contains no recommendations from the IJC, but simply synthesizes the comments received through the public consultations.  The report also does not try to portray the majority opinion; it tries to include minority opinions.  A CD containing all of the input that was received (beyond what is captured in the summary) will accompany the report when it is released. 

John noted some other milestones.  In December 2005, the IJC commissioners wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister and the U.S. President encouraging a thorough review of the GLWQA.  The letter suggests that the review be conducted in a timely manner.  The IJC has also been preparing a document, being called a special report, which has a June 2006 deadline for completion.  The special report will contain advice to the Parties and is expected to be distributed in August 2006.  The IJC is preparing another document, considered to be the 13th biennial report, which is entirely focused on accountability.  Karen Vigmostad (IJC) clarified that the IJC finalized a report and presented it to the two governments (U.S. EPA and EC) at the end of January.  However, it will not be released to the public until French translation has been completed. 

Karen explained the purpose of her talk today – to focus on comments received and what could be important to the Integration Workgroup.  She noted that 4,100 participants were involved in the public consultation process over a period of a few months.  The consultation process asked people to focus on four areas:  1) review expectations, 2) effectiveness – whether the Agreement is effective currently, 3) scope – whether the Agreement covers a broad enough scope or needs to be expanded/reduced, and 4) public engagement – whether public engagement in the GLWQA process is sufficient. 

Karen noted that the IJC wanted people to speak in their own words.  The categories that developed (other than the four framework questions) came from participants.  People expressed deep concern for the Agreement, and they want it to be implemented.  However, they felt that the GLWQA is outdated and wanted a thorough review.  Of primary importance to some participants were the concepts of Virtual Elimination and Zero Discharge.  Karen read a few comments received during the public consultation process:  “Need to reinforce and reemphasize agreements that call for Zero Discharge and Virtual Elimination; zero discharge is not happening and enforcement is not taking place.”  There were also comments about permits that are considered to be detrimental and need to be discontinued.  The public wants to ensure that the review analyzes government programs and determines what is not working and what can be done to give people the tools to meet commitments under the Agreement. 

Karen commented that there was a heated debate among participants who felt the Agreement should not go beyond looking at the chemical aspects of PTS.  The public also emphasized concern about mercury in the Great Lakes, especially from coal-fired power plants, and they want to see that source addressed.  Fish consumption advisories were another area of concern, particularly the fact that families cannot eat fish due to fish consumption advisories.  Karen added that quite a few people discussed emerging chemicals, suggesting that the governments need to do a better job of addressing new chemicals that come into the system.  The public also raised the issue of accountability, including specific comments by many about the accountability of not only the federal governments but also local governments.  Karen noted that a report presenting the details of the public consultation process will be released in mid-March. 

Discussion

A brief question and answer session followed John and Karen’s presentations.  In response to a question about the type of issues that were raised at the public consultation meetings, Karen stated that population and water quanitity were discussed and that people mentioned climate change at nearly every meeting she attended.  John commented that his personal feeling about the public consultation process was that he was pleasantly surprised that the public cared so much.  John added that the GLWQA truly is focused on water quality, not water quantity; however, in the context of an ecosystem approach, it is difficult to separate the two.  Karen noted that many people wanted to include the full length of the St. Lawrence River, and not just a few segments, within the GLWQA.  People also called for more consistency with other agreements. 

Karen noted that 4,100 comments were received, many of which were electronic; 200-300 participated in the web dialogue.  Karen added that quite a few of the 4,100 comments were form letters; 83% of commenters used online channels (email or web dialogue); 63% sent a standard e-mail through other organizations’ websites, and approximately 1,000 participated more directly. 

George Kuper agreed with Karen’s comment that an intimidation factor, as well as the clumsiness of the online web dialogue, made it difficult to use.  George commented that form letters, which appear to represent about 60% of comments, are important because they represent the public’s emotional commitment.  George commented that it is more difficult to write policy (e.g., what kind of stressors to include in a revised Agreement) based on emotional input rather than substantive input.  Karen stated that every single letter/comment will be included on the CD that will be made available.  The CD may be useful in identifying specific areas of focus.  Karen noted that they will also examine some of the more substantive issues in June.

Rachel Heckl commented that, although the web dialogue was new and maybe difficult to use, it was an innovative process that allowed people to make very specific, substantive remarks.    Karen observed that every method of involving people has pros and cons; the commissioners were happy with the web dialogue, although it may exclude people who have no computers.  John Gannon noted that the IJC received 12 phone calls and 18 letters; everything else was submitted electronically.
 

Follow-through on the Discussion Paper on Future Role of GLBTS

Ted Smith (U.S. EPA) explained the purpose of the afternoon session:  to revisit the outcomes of the December Integration Workgroup discussions in the context of the GLWQA review; solicit general thoughts on the current GLWQA review in light of the GLBTS future focus discussion; and discuss follow-through to May 2006.

Ted discussed the outcomes of the December 2005 future focus discussion.  He noted that the Integration Workgroup expressed support for all four proposed pathways forward but highlighted a few missing pieces (issues and concerns) and offered suggestions.

Ted summarized the four pathways that were presented in the GLBTS future focus discussion paper:

  1. Finishing the job on the current Level 1s.
  2. Designing a framework for emerging chemicals.
  3. Coordinating monitoring programs through a Great Lakes Forum.
  4. Increasing international/global outreach.

Ted summarized the concerns that were voiced at the December meeting, including lack of specific goals and milestones, lack of a plan for reaching closure, lack of implementation details, and lack of basin relevance.  He also noted a concern with broadening the GLBTS and losing focus.

Ted summarized the general categories of suggestions that were made in December:

Ted explained that, with this information as background, he would like to revisit these discussions in the context of the GLWQA review. 

Facilitated Discussion

James began the facilitated discussion segment of the meeting by reading the discussion questions:

  1. Building on information shared today, what are your views regarding the attributes and future focus of the GLBTS, in light of the ongoing purpose of the GLWQA and its review?
  2. Who should participate in the GLWQA Review of Toxics/Chemical Pollutants?
  3. What is your response to the idea of using the next Integration Workgroup Meeting in Toronto to host a GLWQA review session?

Lin Kaatz Chary thought (regarding Question 2) that everyone could participate and that it was an open process.  Ted responded that it might be helpful to decide who we should actively recruit to participate, but he agreed that it is an open process. 

James opened the floor to discuss Question 1. 

Danny suggested a change to Question 1:  Based on what you’ve heard, how do you see the GLBTS being incorporated into the review, and what do you expect to be considered during the GLWQA review process?  Or alternatively, how would the GLBTS fit into the GLWQA review process and what are some of the questions that need to be answered?  Danny suggested that those questions are more to the point of what the governments are trying to address in this discussion.

George Kuper responded that the GLBTS was set up to accomplish specific objectives.  It is not a policy shop.  The GLBTS has found it difficult to reach the next step of addressing emerging substances because it is not well-constructed to pursue that agenda based on who its members are and what they have come to the table to accomplish.  Spending much time on the GLWQA review is a distraction from what the GLBTS has been established to accomplish.  James asked for elaboration on the policy shop comment.  George clarified that the GLBTS is committed to pursuing the objectives outlined in the Strategy; to the extent that we might want to modify those objectives within the Strategy itself, we can probably do that.  However, George felt that exploring the issue further would not do much more than persuade us that the Strategy is being co-opted by a larger policy discussion.

Jennifer Vincent wondered about the organizational aspect of the GLWQA review.  She asked whether the annex review committees would be coordinated by annex or by subject.  She also asked whether the people focusing on critical pollutants would be combined into one group.  Mark Elster replied that, given the number of annexes, the idea of having a workgroup for each would be unruly.  The review will try to group those that lend themselves to being grouped.  For example, Annexes 1, 10, and 12 seem to go together because they relate to toxic substances. 

Dale Phenicie expressed concern over mixing the future of the GLBTS with the GLWQA review:  he sees the Agreement as being the guidance document that spells out the objectives, and the GLBTS as the implementing body through which those objectives are met.  In terms of the attributes that need to be highlighted in the future of the GLBTS, he favors the approach of continual progress that the GLBTS has taken toward its goals.  Continual progress toward goals and reductions, in addition to multi-stakeholder participation, have been the hallmarks of the program’s success.  Dale suggested that the GLWQA might take some relief that such a process exists, but the GLWQA should not dictate that process or those attributes.  Dale believes that they are separate.

Mike Murray felt that the GLBTS and GLWQA are separate but related.  He observed that the Integration Workgroup has probably thought about the GLWQA as much as any group has.  The Integration Workgroup has a sense for the strengths and limitations of the GLWQA.  It makes sense for the Integration Workgroup to think about the Agreement itself, although there may be a question of process and how that would work.  For example, how would the GLBTS as an entity make recommendations to the whole review process?  He assumes that the Integration Workgroup, as individuals, would be involved in one way or another.  If there is a potential role, members should not hesitate to participate.  If the Integration Workgroup could come to consensus on some general recommendations, that could be suitable for inclusion in a revised GLWQA.  The GLBTS is as involved in the GLWQA review as any group of individuals and should consider participating as an entity.

Mark Elster explained that there are no presupposed ideas about who should provide input to the review.  He suggested thinking about how the review would be conducted if there were no GLBTS and then considering all of the Integration Workgroup members as resources to provide input.  There is a mixing and matching of potential outcomes and processes that need to be sorted through.  Mark concluded by saying that ARC will probably welcome input from any organization, but it is not looking for the GLBTS as a group to be a RWG. 

Allan Jones agreed with George that the GLBTS is not a policy shop.  The GLBTS is the forum in which stakeholders work together and move forward on persistent toxic substances.  However, the Integration Workgroup can give feedback to people, such as members of the issue working groups or those considering changes to a future GLWQA.  Allan noted that the GLBTS is the working group dealing with PTS in the basin and suggested that any changes to the Agreement or annexes related to chemical substances should provide better guidance to the GLBTS as to which substances need to be addressed.  Allan recommended that, for the GLBTS to be more proactive, rather than operating in a legacy type mode, any changes to the GLWQA should provide guidance with respect to the qualifications of substances of concern (emerging chemicals) that need to be considered within the GLBTS, the issues surrounding pathway intervention, and the identification of how a substance enters the ecosystem.  Allan felt that others responsible for providing recommendations to the GLWQA and annexes should consider those issues, rather than the GLBTS.

Lin felt that there was much unfinished business within the GLBTS. With all the advances and successes achieved, most of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked. She questioned how the GLBTS is going to provide incentives to identify the other issues.  Lin would like to hear more discussion in the Integration Workgroup about sediments and the PBTs that are in sediments. She noted, for example, that PCBs in sediments are a huge problem throughout the Great Lakes. She would also like to see the Army Corps, industry, and others involved in the discussion.  She would like to see the concept of zero discharge resurrected; it is an issue of elimination versus management.

Lin distinguished between elimination and management. Elimination and zero discharge relate to actions at the front of the pipe to stop entry of toxics into the ecosystem.  This is a long-term process.  The GLWQA refers to sunsetting of chemicals, but not much sunsetting of existing chemicals has occurred.  Management of chemicals acknowledges that, over the long term, you want to manage the risk, pathways, and exposure.  Resources and attention accept the reality of chemical contamination and examine how to address that risk. According to Lin, management is important, but the ultimate goal is to develop an elimination plan. 

Lin agreed with George that the GLBTS is not a policy shop, but that the nine years of experiences, successes, and limitations experienced by the Integration Workgroup could inform the review of the Agreement’s effectiveness and demonstrate the changes that need to be made to facilitate the activities of a group like the GLBTS. 

Raymond Vaughan commented that the problem with persistent toxics in the Great Lakes Basin is clearly an evolving one.  His understanding of this discussion is that the GLBTS was looking for a better way to redefine its role and view this evolving measure.  He would favor having the GLBTS be in a position to evolve, react, or be proactive in dealing with new and emerging chemicals and preferably be able to help define its own role, rather than waiting for its role to be defined in a revised GLWQA.  He also sees value in discussing the priorities for the Great Lakes Basin and having this type of open forum to discuss these issues.

Danny attempted to provide more context in terms of his and Gary’s intent.  He and Gary were not suggesting changing the focus of the GLBTS from its current work on Level 1 substances to direct engagement in the GLWQA review.  The intention was to prompt those who legitimately feel that there is a role for them in the review process, because of their experience in the GLBTS, to consider how they can contribute to the process.  Danny explained that they want to recognize that a review process is underway and that the process can impact the GLBTS in some way.  He and Gary do not have an opinion in terms of what should be done, and do not want to impose on the GLBTS to devise a formalized response to the GLWQA review.  Rather, he and Gary are trying to provide an opportunity for a discussion to see if the GLBTS has a role or whether there are questions that the review process should consider.  Danny noted that Mark indicated through his presentation that there is a model for this type of participation. 

George offered his perspective, stating that Lin opened the door and that Mark clearly told us which entrances are available.  George paraphrased Mark’s statements:  (1) that the review will take input from individuals, (2) that we are running a program, and (3) that we should recall that our program came out of that Agreement.  It was the Virtual Elimination task force that gave birth to the GLBTS.  In pursuit of the broad guiding star objective of the GLWQA, a practicable program (the GLBTS) was developed.  Industry commitment to the practical program was secured.  George felt that it would be very difficult to obtain such support for the abstract objective.  George recalled that the GLWQA was once referred to as a “north star” guiding the GLBTS.  The more the GLWQA becomes prescriptive, rather than continuing to serve as a guiding point, the less helpful it will be.

Allan Jones observed that the intent of the recommendation was that there ought to be something, drawn from the experience within the GLBTS, which can feed into the GLWQA review and allow the Integration Workgroup to be more effective in the future.

Rachel Heckl suggested that some of the problems that the GLBTS has identified in the last few years about accurately assessing reductions or the success of the Agreement, particularly related to the use of inventories and how national inventories may need to be enhanced, could perhaps be addressed by looking at the annexes in the Agreement that address monitoring and surveillance.  At a GLBTS meeting last May, it was noted that the inventories are flawed and not sufficiently coordinated.  The future of those inventories is being questioned in the U.S. 

Dale Phenicie suggested that the experience of the GLBTS can help to inform some aspects of the discussion surrounding the Agreement, such as:  where tools might be needed or appropriate, what methodologies are available, or how to achieve goals.  He felt that it is inappropriate for the GLBTS to be driving policy, and that is what the Agreement discussion is about – forming policy. 

Gary Gulezian offered a new perspective.  He observed that the current Agreement contains little about public consultation, stakeholder participation, etc.  It is out of date in that respect.  The CEC has a joint public advisory committee.  The GLBTS goes beyond that – it recognizes new, emerging concepts in governance:  not only are governments necessary to solve problems, but others are also necessary.  Gary asked if the GLBTS is the kind of model that we would like to see reflected in some way in the GLWQA, which would hopscotch it from where it is (between two parties at the federal level) to something that draws in many different parties for real joint problem-solving.  If so, Gary questioned how we can build it into the Agreement in a way that would be flexible and adaptive to deal with Great Lakes problems.

George suggested that we avoid putting form before substance.  We should be clear that the substance of the Agreement is what we can agree that we need to do, not how we want to do it.  If we constrain the Agreement to a methodology, we may constrain the Agreement in a way that prevents us from achieving some objectives.  George would like to see agreement on a much higher plane than one that would be prescriptive of a certain process.  In this case, form should follow objective. 

Michael Murray expressed his opinion:  the GLBTS could submit formal positions on some issues without dictating the outcome of the review process.  The GLBTS would be providing input, like many others who are participating in the review.  He suggested that it is worth making recommendations on issues about which the GLBTS can reach some general agreement.  The GLBTS would not be determining the outcome – it would be a process. 

Lin suggested that you can utilize form following function (which was done in terms of objectives here), but that they are not mutually exclusive.  Her concern is that it does not go beyond the GLBTS forum discussions, which may be limited.  For example, the GLBTS has not discussed sediments and other objectives around which there may not be agreement or consensus.  Lin stated that issues are not being addressed because there are elephants in the room.  One of the biggest elephants is the issue of mercury emissions:  the goal is a 50 percent reduction by a certain date.  Lin asked about the other 50 percent, noting that the problem will not end until coal-powered plants are prohibited from emitting the tons of mercury that they are putting in the Great Lakes.  In other words, until the largest source is addressed, no progress will be made.  George suggested that the elephant is engaged appropriately in the Mercury Workgroup.  There is some enlightening data about sources of mercury in the lakes that is important to us.  Addressing Lin’s first comment, George felt that sediments are appropriately omitted from the Integration Workgroup agenda.  Although sediments are clearly a problem, they do not necessarily need to be addressed in the context of the Integration Workgroup; other, more appropriate groups are working on sediments.  According to George, the GLBTS does not lend itself to dealing with the real issues related to AOC cleanups.

Lin commented that the issues of persistent toxics and contaminated sediments are addressed by the GLWQA through discussions in forums such as the GLBTS.  She felt that the GLBTS is a limited forum that deals with specific issues; but that it is not carrying out the mandate that she interpreted it as having, which is a way of operationalizing the GLWQA in terms of the Parties’ policy mandates. 

James asked for comments on the idea of using the next Integration Workgroup meeting in Toronto to host a GLWQA review session (the third question posed at the beginning of the discussion). 

Danny attempted to summarize the previous discussion:  the GLWQA review could benefit from the experience of the Integration Workgroup, and we would like to offer other ideas as well (e.g., George’s comment about not being too prescriptive).  Danny suggested that, reflecting on the group’s nine years of experience, it might be useful to capture ideas that we think we have consensus around and that may be worthwhile for the review (e.g., ARC).  George disagreed with Danny’s interpretation of the discussion.  George proposed that the GLBTS do what it is good at doing. There are plenty of opportunities to engage in the GLWQA review via the processes that Mark presented.  George felt that the GLBTS ought to remain focused on the GLBTS and let the GLWQA do its own thing.  George felt that informing the GLWQA would not be the best use of GLBTS time; instead, the Integration Workgroup should review the progress of the workgroups, understand where their bottlenecks are, and move some of those elements forward. 

Lin disagreed with George.  She proposed a scenario in which significant changes were made to the GLWQA that would require more stringent activities with respect to emerging chemicals or another issue.  In this scenario, does the GLBTS operate as it always has?  Does some other entity arise to be the implementation arm of the policies that come out of the new GLWQA?  Lin suggested that it depends on how the GLBTS sees itself and how the Parties (governments) view the GLBTS.  Lin noted that NGOs often raise the issue of fragmentation in the Great Lakes among all the different projects being conducted.  She hoped that part of the GLBTS would address that fragmentation. 

Danny could not answer Lin’s question.  He suggested that there would be some review of the government structure at some point.  He could not predict how things would change as a result of a new Agreement.  Danny stated that there are proposals beyond those discussed today regarding the potential for an expanded role to be played by the GLBTS.  He expected that those recommendations would work their way into a review in some way.  Danny noted that, within the BEC family, the GLBTS has been considered successful, but that he and Gary will not be active participants in highlighting the collective opinion of the GLBTS regarding its accomplishments.

Gary observed that each of the elements that Lin identified has been discussed by the Integration Workgroup at one point or another.  Some issues, such as contaminated sediments or regulations for utilities, did not lend themselves to actions that the GLBTS is capable of taking.  Gary recalled that the GLBTS began with a systematic, four-step process that identified the sources and potential actions to address them.  There were several sources, like electric utilities, where the cost curves for reduction actions skyrocketed.  Those types of issues do not yield to voluntary actions – they need to be dealt with by the regulatory machinery that exists on both sides of the border.  On the U.S. side, with respect to control of electric utilities, U.S. EPA works with an air quality management model that does not consider Virtual Elimination.  Virtual Elimination is not a fundamental part of the regulatory structure for air, water, and waste.  Gary noted that issues which cannot be addressed through the GLBTS in a voluntary way lend themselves to management.  Regarding contaminated sediments, Gary added that legislation was enacted that appropriates money for contaminated sediments; in many ways, that legislation was an outgrowth of the GLBTS process, although it is a complex system.  Gary suggested that fact finding performed by the GLBTS informs both the regulatory and non-regulatory sides, but the factors that influence the regulatory side are very different from factors that impact the Agreement.

Julie Schroeder noted that, because the ARC membership has not been established, it is unclear who will be involved.  The present discussion has focused on whether the GLBTS should be engaged in the review.  It will be engaged anyway because a number of Integration Workgroup members will be involved in that review.  The discussion is academic in that regard.  With respect to the next Integration Workgroup meeting, which is quickly approaching in May, it seems premature to discuss the review at that stage when the whole mechanism of the review has not been established. 

It was noted that the GLBTS is a good model that may be worth portraying to those involved in the GLWQA review process.  Allan Jones commented that the Dioxin/Furan Workgroup is a good example of a GLBTS success that would be useful for the GLWQA review.  Allan suggested that the GLBTS ought to consider what advice we could give based upon our experience working together over the past 10 years and formulate that for the people who are considering the GLWQA review.  He said whether that is accomplished in May is irrelevant.  The hard job is distilling those recommendations, based upon our experiences in implementing the GLBTS, that need to be considered as changes to the GLWQA.

Mike Murray would like to obtain outside perspectives on the Agreement.  He noted that people have been considering Great Lakes governance issues (someone wrote a book on it), and their work could serve as resources.  Mike also suggested a topic for an upcoming Integration Workgroup meeting:  how to involve more people in the GLBTS.  He questioned whether it is a funding issue and why more parties (tribes and others) are not involved.

Mark Elster noted that the governments committed to having the first ARC meeting by March 23.  Most likely, recommendations for workgroup membership to ARC will be made at that time, as well as solicitations of support from BEC agencies and other parties. 

Evelyn Strader observed that the GLWQA review process seems to fit in the same framework as the GLRC process.  Several issues raised during the present discussion were addressed by the Collaboration.  Many of these same issues will likely be discussed during the GLWQA review.  Evelyn noted that the GLWQA review is similar to the Collaboration in that everyone can participate actively.  Industry actively participated in the Collaboration and does not want to address the same issues in the GLWQA review process.  She observed a difference of opinion among the group as to whether the GLBTS participates in the review as a group or whether GLBTS stakeholders with expertise participate as individuals.

Jim Smith recognized a sharing of views among the group.  He commented that it might be useful for the GLWQA review to understand the attributes of a problem that a group such as the GLBTS is effective in addressing.  He suggested that there are 10 or more attributes that would be useful to identify and would indicate the type of problem that this sort of governance structure is useful in addressing. 

Karen expressed her discomfort with the conversation.  She commented that the GLBTS is a product of the Agreement.  The Agreement involves everyone who lives and works in the basin.  There is a disconnect between the GLBTS and the IJC.  The GLBTS has expertise, but there seems to be a need for the GLBTS to more clearly decide and define its relationship with SOLEC and the reporting process under the Agreement.  As a product of the Agreement, it is important for the GLBTS to understand it and contribute to the discussions about possible changes to the Agreement.  She would like to hear from the Integration Workgroup about that, at some point.  Karen noted that the IJC is obligated to assess progress.  She wondered whether the GLBTS is involved in helping to inform the science of issues related to the Agreement, such as AOCs.

Gary observed that, in many ways, this group is a forum – it rarely comes to consensus, but that is okay.  Gary explained that the Integration Workgroup presents information in an organized way; it is peer reviewed by all participating entities and then used for members’ individual purposes.  These discussions alone make the GLBTS worthwhile.  The question would be – would it make sense at the next Integration Workgroup meeting to revisit where we are in thinking about toxics, where the Agreement ought to go, and how we might go forward?  Gary concluded that it is too much to expect this group to come up with a consensus on its values.

Danny welcomed the IJC as a participant in the Integration Workgroup and noted that the IJC has been an active participant in the past.  Danny also mentioned that the GLBTS publishes an annual report with data that can be used by any organization.
 

Agenda Planning for Next Integration Workgroup Meeting

The group discussed potential agenda items for the next Integration Workgroup meeting, scheduled for May 18, 2006, in Toronto.  Items suggested for the agenda included the following:

  1. Green Chemistry 
    Earlier in the meeting, several workgroup members proposed ideas for presentations related to Green Chemistry.  These ideas included a presentation on the meaning of Green Chemistry by an advocate of the concept, such as Paul Anastas, and a presentation on the methods by which industry has implemented Green Chemistry principles (e.g., case studies). 
  2. GLWQA Review
    Opinions differed on how much of the May Integration Workgroup meeting should be spent discussing the GLWQA Review.  However, there appeared to be a general understanding that the group would spend some time in May discussing the progress made on the review and the potential for GLBTS input into the review.  
  3. Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA) Workshop
    Julie Schroeder pointed out that some topics discussed at the COA Workshop to be held in March may be relevant to the Integration Workgroup.  She offered to provide a summary of relevant workshop discussions at the May meeting. 
  4. Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research Program – Status Report
    Ted Smith noted that he met with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is in the process of designing a new Great Lakes Human Health Effects Research Program.  He suggested adding a status report on this program to the May meeting agenda. 
  5. Knowledge of EPA/EC Mechanisms – Linkages
    Allan Jones suggested that it would be useful for non-federal parties to understand the mechanisms within U.S. EPA and EC that permit linkages to other groups.  This knowledge would help non-federal parties to understand how messages from the Integration Workgroup are delivered to other groups. 
  6. Review Successes/Shortcomings – Relate to “fit”/Generate Ideas for the Agreement Review Committee (ARC)
    Gary Gulezian suggested that the group consider the issues related to new chemicals in light of the successes and drawbacks that have been observed throughout the existence of the GLBTS.  He added that such a review should consider the “fit” between the experiences of the GLBTS workgroup members and the pressing issues related to emerging chemicals.  This information, if provided to ARC, could help generate ideas regarding new chemicals. 
  7. Best Management Practices Update
    Allan Jones suggested an update on the initiatives undertaken by municipalities and how networking or information-sharing between municipalities is developing.  Such information could come from the Great Lakes Mayors or other municipal representatives. 

A suggestion was made to organize the May meeting agenda around the four proposed paths forward for the GLBTS (discussed in Danny Epstein’s presentation):  1) finishing the job on the current Level 1 substances, 2) designing a framework for emerging chemicals, 3) coordinating monitoring programs through a Great Lakes Forum, and 4) increasing international/global outreach.  However, Danny Epstein explained that those pathways were not intended to be Integration Workgroup functions; they were meant to be suggestions for the BEC.  This discussion led to a question by Julie Schroeder on what constitutes “finishing the job” on Level 1 substances.  Danny explained that there is still work to be done on mercury, dioxins/furans, and other Level 1 substances and that the group has recommended to the BEC that this work be continued.  However, no new substances will be accepted at this time.  Gary Gulezian added that the GLBTS can only perform work that is within its scope of activities – it cannot force regulatory or legislative action, for example.  Danny emphasized the need to focus on completing the tasks that have been identified and noted that, as the GLWQA review unfolds, the GLBTS will receive further direction in terms of its involvement in other efforts. 
 

Closing Remarks

Gary Gulezian and Danny Epstein provided concluding remarks.  Gary noted John Menkedick’s retirement and expressed appreciation for his support over all the years of the GLBTS.  To the extent that this effort has been successful, it has been due in large part to John’s work.  Gary gave John an open invitation to attend future GLBTS meetings.

Danny thanked everyone for participating. 

Presentations from this meeting are located at: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/integration/Feb2006/index.html.

Next Meeting

The next Integration Workgroup meeting is scheduled for May 18, 2006, in Toronto, Ontario.  A GLBTS Stakeholder Forum will be held on May 17, 2006.


Integration Workgroup Meeting Attendees
February 16, 2006

Mark Elster U.S. EPA
Danny Epstein Environment Canada
John Gannon International Joint Commission
Gary Gulezian U.S. EPA, GLNPO
Keith Hanson Minnesota Power
Rachel A. Heckl Great Lakes United
John Jackson Great Lakes United
Allan Jones Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council
Lin Kaatz Chary Northwest Indiana Toxics Action Project
Robert Krauel Environment Canada
George H. Kuper CGLI
Chun Nam Law International Joint Commission
David Macarus U.S. EPA, Office of Science, Ecosystems and Communities
Sridhar Marisetti Environment Canada, Great Lakes Environment Office
James McKenzie McKenzieParis Inc.
John Menkedick Battelle
Tricia Mitchell Environment Canada
Michael Murray National Wildlife Federation
Dale Phenicie CGLI
Lou Pocalujka Consumers Energy
Julie Schroeder Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Jim Smith Environment Canada
Ted Smith U.S. EPA, Region 5
Evelyn Strader CGLI
Tom Tseng Environment Canada
Raymond Vaughan NYS Attorney General's Office
Karen Vigmostad International Joint Commission
Jennifer Vincent Environment Canada
Alan Waffle Environment Canada
E. Marie Wines U.S. EPA, GLNPO
Anita Wong Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Jennifer Zewatsky Battelle

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.