Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholders Forum - Chicago, Illinois 

September 15, 2005
Welcome and Introductions

James McKenzie, facilitator for the meeting, welcomed all participants to the Integration Workgroup meeting of the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) and gave an overview of the day’s agenda.  Gary Gulezian, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), and Danny Epstein, Environmental Protection Branch, Environment Canada (EC), provided some introductory remarks.  Noting that the main topic of the agenda was discussing the future focus of the GLBTS, Gary commented that the GLBTS is once again at a crossroads.  Gary suggested that this meeting will set the groundwork for the future focus of the GLBTS and that the governments are looking for stakeholders’ input.  Danny informed the group of a meeting hosted by the Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI) the previous day, and he thanked George Kuper (CGLI) for organizing that meeting.  According to Danny, the previous day’s meeting resulted in fruitful and constructive discussions with industry and environmental groups together in a relaxed environment.  The purpose of that meeting was to identify ways to motivate industry participation in the GLBTS.  The purpose of the present meeting, Danny observed, was to ensure understanding of the GLBTS background and all factors that impact it.

Stakeholder Activity Updates  

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

Kathleen Schuler of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy reported that there is an effort in Minnesota to reintroduce a ban on brominated flame retardants.

Edwina Lopes (EC) reported that a Clean Sweep for agricultural pesticides will be held in Ontario in the coming weeks.

Rachel Heckl of Great Lakes United (GLU) noted several issues that GLU is currently pursuing, including green chemistry options and brominated flame retardant legislation.  Rachel is also involved in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxics Team.

As an example of GLBTS’ role of advocacy in other countries, Danny Epstein asked S. Venkatesh (EC) to describe a recent agreement with China.  Venkatesh explained that emissions from India and China affect levels of pollutants in the North American arctic.  A workshop in 2004 sponsored by US EPA made progress in convincing China of the importance or impact of its emissions on other parts of the world.  Funding from EC and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) has enabled an EC scientist to travel to China for a one-year sabbatical to work with the Chinese EPA and several universities to gather information on China’s emissions.  Venkatesh reported that China is expected to match this funding, and support from US EPA is also anticipated because the work can be leveraged.

Reporting to BEC on Management Outcomes from the General Framework to Assess Management of Level 1 Substances

Alan Waffle (EC) presented a summary of a document summarizing the GLBTS management assessment reports for the Level 1 substances.  [The summary document was handed out at the meeting.]   The summary document, according to Alan, provides a backbone for reporting to the Binational Executive Committee (BEC) at its next meeting.  Alan presented an overview, stating that:

Discussion

John Jackson (GLU) objected to the words “defer to” in the alkyl-lead and pesticide recommendations to defer to other programs to continue reductions.  John suggested that the GLBTS acknowledge that it cannot achieve its goals without those other programs and, rather than “defer to” other programs, urge them to take action.

John Jackson also commented on the sediment outcome, suggesting a need for an assessment of the extent of sediment contamination remaining.  If contaminated sediments contribute to a failure to achieve the GLBTS goals and the ultimate target of virtual elimination, John proposed that the GLBTS conduct an assessment to determine the extent of the problem and whether further action is needed.  John noted that the GLBTS annual report presents progress but makes no assessment of the extent of remaining contamination.

Gary Gulezian responded that we seem to be winning the battle in convincing people that contaminated sediments are important.  He stated that cleaning up contaminated sites has become a high priority for US EPA.  Gary added that tracking progress is extremely important; less than 10 percent of known deposits have been cleaned up.

Danny Epstein reported that progress is also being made in Ontario to clean up contaminated sediments.  He described the Cornwall AOC as an example.  He stated that $40 million is being spent over the next five years and that a more complete picture of the work remaining will emerge after this period.  Danny concluded that, while the goal of remediating contaminated sediments has not been reached, work is proceeding.

John agreed that progress is being made and that reporting progress is important.  However, he recommended that the GLBTS use the reports of progress to convey to agencies that continuing clean-up efforts is critical to the goals of the GLBTS (because funding is always under threat).

Dale Phenicie (CGLI) mentioned some comments made by Bob Bailey, who could not be present at the meeting.  Bob objected to the recommendation for the HCB Workgroup to include other chlorobenzenes.  Tom Tseng of EC, the Canadian HCB/B(a)P Workgroup co-chair, responded that the HCB assessment report provides background for looking ahead, including related chlorobenzene compounds.  Tom added that chlorobenzene source sectors are common to HCB and dioxins/furans and that the intent was to include other chlorobenzenes to track reductions of additional related substances.  Regarding the language in the summary document, Tom proposed two options:  1) keep or reword the recommendation; or 2) further discuss the recommendation.  Dale observed that the HCB assessment report does not build the case for including other chlorobenzenes, and he suggested rewording the recommendation.  He noted that the case is similar to the recommendation to include other PAHs in the B(a)P report.

Steve Risotto of the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) asked for further clarification of the recommendation to expand the HCB Workgroup to include other chlorobenzenes.  Steve expressed a concern for creating a backdoor for submitting substances for virtual elimination without a vetted process for elevating substances to such a status.  He noted that one of the Level 2 chlorobenzenes is a currently manufactured product, and he asked that the report clearly state which chemicals are included in “chlorobenzenes.”  Steve also suggested that there may be better candidates for virtual elimination than chlorobenzenes.  Gary Gulezian explained that the intent was not to elevate the chlorobenzenes to Level 1 status but to track the co-control benefits of reducing HCB.  Steve was in favor of rewording the recommendation to clarify this intent.

Steve Risotto also suggested that US EPA and EC carefully review the summary document before it goes to BEC.  He pointed out that the document implies that chlorinated solvents are a principal known remaining source of PCBs in the Great Lakes Basin, yet there are no chlorinated solvent manufacturers in the Basin and no PCB emissions reported to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) by manufacturers.  Tony Martig, the US PCB Workgroup co-chair, promised to review the relevant part of the summary document and correct any errors.  Tony also noted that the document concedes a need to better understand the relative contribution of each of the sources of PCBs.

Dale Phenicie and other stakeholders requested an opportunity to comment on the draft summary document for BEC.  George Kuper (CGLI) was particularly concerned about the summary document gaining credibility and proposed that there be a process for ensuring the document accurately reflects workgroup output.  Gary and Danny were willing to comply with George’s request, offering 2-3 weeks to comment on the current draft and a final review after comments have been incorporated.  George suggested that a conference call also be held to discuss the next draft of the document.  Danny mentioned that the BEC meeting (the timing of which has not been determined) will be open to the public.  However, George was inclined to resolve any discrepancies within the GLBTS process, before the BEC meeting.

Sue Brauer of US EPA reported that Lake Michigan Mass Balance model simulations will be presented at a Lake Michigan conference on November 2-3, 2005, in Green Bay, Wisconsin.   The model simulations use data from the 1994-1995 Lake Michigan Mass Balance Study.  The study included media samples from wet and dry air deposition, tributaries, air, sediment, water column, and biota (lake trout and lake trout diet). For more information, go to http://www.aqua.wisc.edu/solm/.  Exit disclaimer

Update of Long Range Transport Activities

Venkatesh (EC) presented the results of a long range transport modeling activity that was conducted by Environment Canada and the Meteorological Service of Canada over the past year and a half.  His presentation, titled Tracking Toxaphene in the North American Great Lakes Basin, described the “September event,” or the episodic long range, transboundary transport of toxaphene in September of 2000.  During this event, high concentrations of toxaphene were transported from the southeastern states of the U.S. northward to the Great Lakes as well as southward into Mexico.  Vector winds played an important role in transporting and depositing toxaphene onto the Great Lakes.  Wet deposition of toxaphene rose three orders of magnitude during the September event.  The September event demonstrates that:  

Venkatesh noted that they are beginning to model the transport of HCB and B(a)P.  Small quantities of dioxin make it difficult to model at low resolution; another barrier is uncertainty in the accuracy of dioxin inventories. 

John Jackson (GLU) noted that the September event is a one-time (7-day) event.  Another event could have occurred if winds and precipitation had been different and had resulted in a different deposition scenario for the Great Lakes.  Also, this event does not occur every September.  Venkatesh agreed that the September event is one situation. 

There was some discussion about whether deposition to Lake Superior may be higher than to other Lakes. Venkatesh noted that lower water temperatures may also cause toxaphene to remain in Lake Superior.  Some data from Deb Swackhammer show that Lake Superior has the highest levels of toxaphene in fish.  A new book by Deb Swackhammer, and edited by Ron Hites, includes a review of the history and status of toxaphene, as well as other major contaminants.  The book is in the Handbook of Chemistry series and is expected to be released next year. 

George Kuper (CGLI) asked for further explanation of the basis for EC’s visit to China and discussions with India, and whether the GLBTS or EC will have an impact.  In response, Venkatesh provided some additional background.  The effort began when modeling results showed that the presence of toxic substances in the Arctic is attributable not to local sources but to global emissions.  In 2004, US EPA held a workshop in China to begin to explain how Chinese emissions can impact other parts of the world.  This was followed by a visit to India, in which Venkatesh presented modeling results showing how long range transport of substances affects North America.  The Chinese understand the importance of their emissions and have agreed to work with Canada.  As previously mentioned, an EC scientist is presently working with the Chinese in China to gather information on their emissions. 

Ken De (EC) mentioned that, at the GLBTS meetings in May 2005, Dr. Gong of the Meteorological Service of Canada presented the results of modeling work showing the deposition of PCBs.  Ken and other GLBTS stakeholders are interested in continuing to use the model to determine the relative contributions of sources of PCBs other than storage and equipment, and to obtain a full picture of the impact of PCBs on the Great Lakes.

Future Focus of the GLBTS

History of the GLBTS

Alan Waffle (EC) provided some background on the history of the GLBTS to serve as an overview for the four presentations to follow.  His presentation, titled GLBTS 101 was taken from previous documents, such as the GLBTS strategy document.  He described the philosophy of the GLBTS, which has its roots in the Boundary Water Treaty of 1909, Article II (a) of 1987 GLWQA, Chapter 6 of the International Joint Commission’s (IJC) Seventh Biennial Report Exit disclaimeron the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, a framework developed by the IJC’s Virtual Elimination Task Force, and finally, the purpose and principles set forth in the GLBTS strategy.

Alan also discussed the governance model for the GLBTS. The GLBTS:

Finally, Alan discussed the mechanics of the GLBTS.  He described the 4-step analytical process that was followed for the Level 1 substances.  He noted that the strategy stipulates that the governments consult with stakeholders at an appropriate forum with respect to changing substances on the Level 1 and Level 2 lists.  The strategy also states that the governments will evaluate the Level 1 and Level 2 lists, and if a substance is elevated to Level 1, both countries will set virtual elimination challenge goals; elevation or removal of substances from the Level 1 and Level 2 lists will be made with appropriate opportunity for public review and comment.

At the request of meeting participants, Alan’s notes for the presentation will be made available on the GLBTS website at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/reports/stakesept2005/index.html.

Chemicals of Emerging Concern

Ted Smith (US EPA) provided a high-level view of US EPA chemical assessment and control programs.  His presentation included descriptions of the following national US EPA programs, which he considered the most relevant to the GLBTS:

There was some discussion about other national US EPA programs, such as the PBT Profiler, the PBT TRI reporting threshold, and other aspects of TSCA, VCCEP, FDA, FIFRA, etc.  It was noted that many voluntary programs are under the authority of TSCA.  Melissa Hulting (US EPA) referred participants to a US Government Accounting Office review of TSCA [which was distributed to participants following the meeting] and the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration draft strategy.

Edwina Lopes (EC) stated that Canada’s Toxic Substances Management Policy (TSMP) refers to policy guidance based on toxicity and bioaccumulation; this determines whether a substance will be subject to virtual elimination or lifecycle management.

There were questions about the 20 or so chemicals in the VCCEP program, the criteria by which they were chosen, and whether they overlap with substances chosen for other programs.  Ted Smith stated that the VCCEP chemicals are mainly volatile organic compounds (VOCs), except for some polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which are emerging compounds.

Gary Gulezian provided some context for Ted’s presentation, explaining that it gives the full scope of what is happening with respect to emerging chemicals.  The intent of the discussion, Gary suggested, is to decide how the GLBTS could add value or supplement existing programs.

National P2/Persistent Toxics Programs

Derek Muir of the National Water Research Institute of EC presented information on Identifying New Persistent Chemicals in the Great Lakes Basin.  His presentation focused on how to identify new persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals of concern to the Great Lakes, considering long range transport potential to the open lake waters.  Derek discussed Environment Canada’s Domestic Substances List (DSL) categorization as an example of a way to screen chemicals of concern.  He described prioritization and analytical challenges.  Limited monitoring data is available to validate screening schemes for new chemicals.

Allan Jones of the Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council observed that one challenge of a categorization scheme is identifying priorities for choosing to address chemicals (that is, identifying which are significant for further work).  He suggested that the Integration Workgroup identify chemicals that are important for the GLBTS.

Mike Murray of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) commented that a chemical’s long range transport potential may be determined by its atmospheric oxidation half-life (KOA) or Henry’s law constant as Derek described, but other factors may contribute as well.  He noted that for some chemicals persistence may be more important in water than in air.

Ted Smith commented that Deb Swackhammer conducted a broad-based scan of chemicals in fish.  Derek contended that there is no current way to screen for all chemicals because analytical methods do not exist to detect all chemicals.  He added that developing an analytical method for a chemical is resource-intensive, equivalent to a masters level project.  Mike Murray suggested that manufacturers might be able to analyze chemicals that they produce, but perhaps measuring such chemicals in the environment is more difficult, and no analytical method exists for substances in environmental media.  Derek agreed that industrial researchers are not well connected to analytical chemistry researchers.  He also noted that levels in the environment are much lower than levels being produced.

Environment Canada Sectors Program

Jim Smith (EC) described Canada’s sector sustainability tables, which are being prepared by the government of Canada.  The purpose of his presentation was to solicit feedback on how the GLBTS might interact with the sector sustainability tables.  The tables include the following sectors:

The motivation for the tables is to adapt to the changing nature of competitiveness.  Canada has recognized that environmental sustainability is emerging as a key driver of competitiveness.  Canada is responding with a new national approach to environmental sustainability – to align environmental and economic signals.  The sector sustainability tables have been created with input from industry, non-governmental organizations, and governments.  Stakeholder discussions suggest that the tables will be most effective if they:

The sector sustainability tables set the agenda and priorities for each sector.  Working groups have been formed on that basis and are to present options and recommendations for implementation.  The proposed schedule for creating the sector tables was design of the tables in July/August 2005, and first meetings of initial working groups in October/November 2005.  The five sector sustainability tables are currently under development, with co-leads assigned for each.

John Jackson (GLU) commented that Canada’s sector sustainability tables are very controversial in the environmental community.  He noted, for example, that the sector co-leads are industry representatives and that none are from environmental groups.  The environmental groups feel that they are secondary in the process.  He added that Canada is beginning a review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), and he is concerned that the CEPA review will be subverted by the sector sustainability tables.  John stated that the environmental community currently does not support the tables.

Dale Phenicie (CGLI) noted that there is concern from industry as well, as to the outcome of the sector sustainability tables.  Jim Smith clarified that there is no single work product envisioned to result from the tables.  Rather, it is a process that creates permanent sector tables.  Danny Epstein (EC) added that development of the tables is currently in progress and that decisions will be made by the sector co-leads.  Danny expects this process to impact the workload of EC staff as well as how EC does business.  Draft papers are being prepared to describe how the sector tables will proceed, but the sector workgroups will decide on issues and other matters.  A secretariat will provide oversight.

George Kuper (CGLI) remarked that US EPA’s Common Sense Initiative (CSI) is actually a sector initiative that has some phenomenal success stories.  He suggested that the CSI might be resurrected, if it is not still active.

GLWQA Review

Mark Elster (US EPA) presented the status of US EPA’s review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA).  Signed in 1972, the GLWQA is an agreement between Canada and the US which commits the two countries to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.  The GLWQA was revised in 1978 to establish the policy of virtual elimination and a zero discharge philosophy for control of persistent toxic substances.

The original GLWQA and its subsequent revisions form the foundation of the GLBTS. The GLWQA largely focuses on eliminating or reducing the discharge of persistent toxic substances to the Great Lakes system.  Major provisions of the GLWQA are:

In accordance with Article 10 of the GLWQA, the US and Canada are required to review the operation and effectiveness of the GLWQA every six years.  This review is triggered by the release of every third biennial report of the International Joint Commission.

The last GLWQA review began in 1998.  It was determined that the broad outline of the GLWQA, as articulated in the “Articles,” was still sound.  However, some of the programmatic details in the “Annexes” were significantly out of date.  In 2000, the review determined that a formal update was not immediately essential and that resources would be better spent on implementing the relevant aspects of the GLWQA.

A binational group headed by EPA and EC are designing the current review process, which will be open and transparent.  The review is a 12-18 month process, slated to begin around March 2006.  Based on the findings of the current review, it may be appropriate to revise the GLWQA.  A revision would require formal discussions with Canada, including the involvement of the US State Department and the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.  Consultation with Great Lakes stakeholders would also be essential.  Updating the GLWQA is a significant, resource-intensive effort that must be carefully considered in 2006.

Mark Elster advised that the GLBTS discuss how to participate in, interact with, and/or advise the GLWQA review workgroups.  There are three areas in which the GLBTS could play a role in the GLWQA review:

  1. Annex 1, which requires compiling and maintaining toxic substances lists.
  2. Annex 12, which pertains to regulatory strategies for controlling or preventing the input of toxic substances to the Great Lakes system.
  3. Annex 15, which involves research, surveillance, monitoring, and pollution control measures to reduce airborne toxic substances.

Mark also suggested that the GLBTS Level 1 assessments could inform the GLWQA review and that the GLWQA review would benefit from a GLBTS perspective.  He also suggested that any GLBTS review of new and emerging chemicals would be important to the GLWQA review.  EC and US EPA are currently identifying workgroups for the GLWQA review and are accepting volunteers who are willing to participate.  Workgroup members can include US EPA staff, environmental groups, academics, industry, and others.  Mark provided his contact information for anyone wanting to participate in the GLWQA review:  telephone: (312) 886-3857, email: elster.mark@epa.gov.

Venkatesh questioned why the recommendations of the 1998 review were not implemented.  Mark responded that amending the GLWQA is an intensive effort with high resource costs that would have detracted from implementation of the GLWQA.  He added that opening up the GLWQA for changes raises the possibility that it may become less protective.  Venkatesh noted that there are concerns in the air community that the air side of the GLWQA will be weakened.  Mark concluded that there are no preconceived ideas for the outcome of the current GLWQA review, although the results of the 1998 review will be considered.

George Kuper raised questions about the governments’ budgets for the GLWQA review and the role of the State Department.  Mark Elster explained that US EPA currently has no additional resources to conduct the GLWQA review; it will be performed with existing staff and resources.  Gary added that the US State Department is participating and is open to potentially amending the GLWQA, but not to the point of turning it into a treaty.  EC has roughly $1 million appropriated for the GLWQA review, according to Danny Epstein, and Canada’s “state department” is part of the ongoing process. 

George suggested that Canada’s cross-cutting sector sustainability table might be a start for Canada’s GLWQA review.  However, Danny did not feel that the Canada-wide cross-cutting table was appropriate for the GLWQA review, which is an Ontario region EC program.  George argued that sustainable development should be an overarching issue, rather than one component, of the GLWQA review.

US Regional Collaboration

Ted Smith provided an overview of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration (GLRC).  Because the GLRC is relevant to the GLBTS, Ted’s purpose was to describe the GLRC process and solicit feedback from the Integration Workgroup.   

The GLRC was initiated in May 2004 by Executive Order 13340, which recognized the Great Lakes as a “national treasure” and directed the US EPA Administrator to convene a “regional collaboration of national significance for the Great Lakes.” The collaboration was directed to develop, by consensus, a national restoration and protection action plan for the Great Lakes.  The GLRC began with a kickoff meeting in December 2004, and a final action plan is to be released in December 2005. 

In 2005, eight issue area strategy teams developed various parts of a strategy document.  The toxic pollutant or PBT Team developed five recommendations.  Three of those recommendations propose that the GLBTS serve a coordinating role in implementing the recommendation: 

  1. Virtually eliminate the discharge of mercury, pcbs, dioxins, pesticides and other toxic substances to the Great Lakes
  2. Improve research, surveillance and forecasting capability
  3. Address international sources

George Kuper commented that the recommendation to “Improve research, surveillance and forecasting capability” implies a focus on data and information, and as such, appears to overlap with the GLRC Indicators and Information Team.  Ted and Gary agreed that this needs to be reconciled.  George also commented that indicators to guide and inform the outcomes of the GLRC are critical for this major environmental policy program. 

John Jackson questioned how the GLRC will feed into the GLWQA review.  Mark Elster replied that the GLRC will inform the GLWQA review by providing an understanding of the status and future of current US programs.  Danny Epstein noted that Canada does not have a formal program like the GLRC, but other Canadian programs will inform the GLWQA review. 

George Kuper raised the issue of integration of the GLRC, GLWQA review, and SOLEC 2006 with the conference’s focus on chemical integrity.  Ted Smith replied that planning for SOLEC 2006 has recently begun and a workshop is planned in November to develop an agenda for SOLEC.  Ted hopes that SOLEC serves to inform the GLBTS as it begins to look at new chemicals.  He noted that many US EPA staff work in both programs.  Dale Phenicie of CGLI is involved in all three initiatives.  Sue Brauer added that there is overlap with the Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) as well.  The LaMPs will be updated in 2006.  Sue noted that Dale Phenicie is also involved in the Lake Michigan LaMP. 

George Kuper commented that, while the three initiatives focus on chemicals, the GLBTS should maintain a broader focus, as the breadth of ecosystem issues is increasingly recognized.  Ted explained that chemical integrity, the focus of SOLEC 2006, is broader than toxic chemicals.  For instance, chemical integrity includes consideration of biological stress, an interrelated input, due to its impact on chemicals. 

Future Focus of the GLBTS Revisited

Danny Epstein provided a little background for the ensuing discussion.  As the tenth anniversary of the strategy approaches, the governments are soliciting input from the Integration Workgroup on the future shape and focus of the GLBTS.  The process begins with this meeting and will continue at the December 2005 GLBTS meetings.  Danny suggested that workgroup members consider:

Gary Gulezian added that the governments are primarily interested in comments concerning “process” but also reactions to the presentations given today.  To prompt the discussion, James McKenzie, facilitator, posed the following two questions to the group:

  1. What is your reaction to the initiatives described this morning?
  2. From the perspective of your organization, how would you like to see the next iteration of the GLBTS and the initiatives described this morning interface?

James presented a number of questions to help frame thoughts and ideas regarding a future iteration of the GLBTS.  He asked the group to consider other questions that should be added to his list.  James also asked the group to consider where the GLBTS could play a value-added role.

Dale Phenicie (CGLI) felt that it is important to complete accurate assessment reports for the Level 1 substances.  Dale commented that the reports will receive more recognition if the GLBTS process feeds into the GLWQA review.

George Kuper offered several comments.  He lauded the value of face-to-face meetings and the opportunity to get to know regulators.  However, he explained that it is becoming difficult to keep industry interested when they feel that they are re-giving information that they had provided once before.  George was impressed by Alan Waffle’s GLBTS 101 presentation, and he suggested that the GLBTS adds value by reinforcing good works in the Basin.  George proposed that the GLBTS shift to a focus on the natural immunity of ecosystems to recover.  George referred to a document prepared by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) that offers a prescription for restoring the Great Lakes by integrating new ecosystem approaches.  Mike Murray (NWF) explained that the document George mentioned is still in draft, but NWF hopes it will become a consensus statement in the next six months.  Mike agreed with the sustainability issue as a vision for the GLBTS, although he favored maintaining the GLBTS virtual elimination goals and other important issues.  Mike called for an integrated ecosystem approach to addressing toxics in the Great Lakes.

Jean Tremblay of EC in Montreal noted the omission of the climate change issue in the meeting’s discussions.  Jean provided examples of the importance of climate change as it relates to toxic chemicals.  He explained that an ecosystem’s capacity to absorb toxics is modified by climate change, as is the residence time of toxic substances.  Further, for industry, climate change can forecast which chemicals are produced and the volume of chemicals produced. 

Mike Murray commented that NWF has been heavily involved in the climate change issue, and this theme will be incorporated into the NWF document just described.  Mike also commented that analytical methods do not exist for many new chemicals.  He would like to see the number of new chemicals decrease by incorporating concepts such as the precautionary approach and green chemistry into the GLBTS and GLWQA.

Liz La Plante of US EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) commented on the importance of working with US EPA headquarters to screen new chemicals.  Melissa Hulting, also of GLNPO, would like to become acquainted with US EPA staff working in the High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical and TSCA programs.

George Kuper commented on Ted Smith’s presentation on chemicals of emerging concern.  George suggested that toxic chemicals are being prevented from entering commerce, and that industry cannot afford to introduce toxic chemicals because of the problems it causes. 

George called for a new way of working toward outcomes and a change in direction of GLBTS efforts.  Danny Epstein recalled that the GLBTS has resulted in positive outcomes, and that stakeholders and governments have learned to work together.  Danny suggested that the Integration Workgroup consider the relevancy of the GLBTS 10 to 15 years from now.

John Jackson cautioned against the GLWQA review becoming a compilation of current programs.  Rather than a continuation of existing programs, John offered ideas for new approaches to address toxics in the coming decades:  1) extended producer responsibility, and 2) product content and use.

Tom Tseng (EC) suggested that Derek Muir could help inform the GLBTS of which new chemicals to address.  He also suggested TSCA could help.  Derek noted that some emerging issues were listed in his presentation, but that to identify leading issues, a dialog with screening people at US EPA is needed.  Derek also observed that Great Lakes researchers lead the world in measuring new chemicals.  Derek identified a need for a strategy to move forward with the predictions of screening programs.  He further suggested that use information could be put in terms of scenarios and modeled to see where substances deposit in the Great Lakes Basin as well as to investigate long range transport.  Sue Brauer commented that the TSCA Inventory Update report might include use information.

Dale Phenicie proposed that the next version of the GLBTS be the Great Lakes Binational Toxics and Sustainability Strategy.  Mike Murray was also in favor of the GLBTS promoting sustainability; he further advocated an action-oriented framework and interaction with academia and industry concerning the application of green chemistry/green production programs.

From the viewpoint of a participant of the GLRC, Rachel Heckl (GLU) felt that the GLBTS is positioned to play a central role in the emerging chemicals arena.  She noted the importance of an action-based framework and suggested that the brominated compounds and other emerging substances listed in Derek’s presentation be the focus of immediate discussions.  Rachel further proposed that the GLBTS define sustainability and promote US EPA’s Design for the Environment and other sustainability programs.  Ted Smith commented that there are many existing sustainability programs, and perhaps the GLBTS could interact with or add value to these programs.

George Kuper suggested that the Integration Workgroup decide whether emerging chemicals is an area where the GLBTS could add value, before deciding upon actions (i.e., form follows function).  George suggested that the GLBTS could not improve upon national level work addressing emerging chemicals.  Melissa Hulting (US EPA) noted that the national level is missing toxicity and environmental data, which the GLBTS could assist in gathering.  Todd Nettesheim (US EPA) added that Great Lakes environmental researchers are pioneers.  Todd asked whether the same expertise resides in industry and could be brought to the emerging chemicals discussion.

John Jackson proposed adding two questions to those that James had listed:

  1. Are we using the right mix of strategies to achieve the GLBTS goals?
  2. Are we effective in conveying findings and providing input to other fora?

Ted Smith proposed that the GLBTS serve as a Great Lakes human health network that looks at health and ecotoxicological impacts and back-calculates the value and priorities of the GLBTS.  Mike Murray agreed with this idea but cautioned against waiting to see the impacts of a problem and having to remediate; he suggested bringing in the best science to predict problem chemicals and to design cleaner chemicals.  Liz La Plante also agreed with bringing human health experts into the GLBTS.  She suggested that, if the sustainability path is taken, the GLBTS could publicize and build upon the pioneering Lake Superior LaMP work.

Derek Muir observed that the Great Lakes have unique features and problems that may not be seen elsewhere, for example, due to the size of the Lakes.

Erin Newman (US EPA), the US Dioxin Workgroup co-chair, commented that the GLBTS Burn Barrel Subgroup drives the national US EPA open burning program and policy seems to follow.

Venkatesh proposed that the GLBTS construct a one-sentence mission statement to guide actions over the next 10 years.

Ken De (EC), the Canadian PCB Workgroup co-chair, felt that there was great value in the GLBTS PCB Workgroup efforts, as evidenced by its action-oriented programs and participation.

Gary Gulezian and Danny Epstein concluded the discussion.  Gary noted that today’s discussions will form the basis for more formal discussions on the future role of the GLBTS at the December meetings.  Gary also added his perspective on the value of the GLBTS:  few other endeavors identify a chemical and synthesize a “big picture” understanding of the substance.  He asked the group to consider whether this approach would be valuable for other chemicals (e.g., new chemicals).  Danny noted that the GLBTS has not been successful in attracting the municipal sector, which is something he would like to see the GLBTS accomplish.  Danny would also like to see the GLBTS incorporate the GLWQA review and the GLRC.  Danny expects these discussions to continue over the next few months and be the focus of the next meeting in December.

Agenda Planning 

The next Integration Workgroup meeting is expected to be a brainstorming session on the future role of the GLBTS.  George Kuper stated that industry is not in a position to present ideas for the future of the GLBTS but that they can react to the governments’ proposed ideas.  Gary Gulezian explained that the GLRC strategy recommendations, which are embraced by Canada, form the starting point of the proposed role of the future of the GLBTS. 

At the request of Integration Workgroup members, EC and US EPA will prepare a brief document outlining the governments’ proposed role for the future of the GLBTS.  Members asked that the document expand beyond the GLRC to portray a binational perspective.  The document will be distributed approximately two weeks in advance of the next Integration Workgroup meeting for discussion at the meeting.

Specific items suggested for discussion at the next meeting include:

  1. Identifying emerging chemicals of concern, including creating a “watch” list of substances.
  2. Evaluating whether the GLBTS model (i.e., synthesizing information for a substance to understand the “big picture”) is a valuable approach to use for other chemicals (e.g., new chemicals).
  3. Attracting the municipal sector.
  4. Collaborating with the GLWQA review and the GLRC.

Presentations from this meeting are posted at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/reports/stakesept2005/index.html.

Next Meeting

The next GLBTS Stakeholder Forum and Integration Workgroup meetings are scheduled for December 6-7, 2005, in Chicago, Illinois.



Integration Workgroup Meeting Attendees

Sue Brauer US EPA
Alexis Cain US EPA, Region 5
Julie Carriere Environment Canada
Ken De Environment Canada
Mark Elster US EPA
Danny Epstein Environment Canada
E. Marie Graziano US EPA, GLNPO
Gary Gulezian US EPA, GLNPO
Keith Hanson Minnesota Power
Rachel A. Heckl Great Lakes United
Melissa Hulting US EPA, GLNPO
John Jackson Great Lakes United
Allan Jones Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council
George H. Kuper CGLI
Liz La Plante US EPA, GLNPO
Edwina Lopes Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Tony Martig US EPA, Region 5
James  McKenzie DPRA Canada
John Menkedick Battelle
Jeff Miller Treated Wood Council
Derek Muir Environment Canada
Michael Murray National Wildlife Federation
Todd Nettesheim US EPA, GLNPO
Erin Newman US EPA
Daniel O’Riordan US EPA, GLNPO
Dale Phenicie CGLI
Steve Risotto Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA)
Jim Roewer USWAG
Steve Rosenthal US EPA
Julie Schroeder Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Kathleen Schuler Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy
Jim Smith Environment Canada
Ted Smith US EPA, Region 5
Evelyn Strader CGLI
Amy Thomas Battelle
Jean Tremblay Environment Canada
Tom Tseng Environment Canada
Raymond Vaughan NYS Attorney General's Office
S. Venkatesh Environment Canada
Alan Waffle Environment Canada
Anita Wong Environment Canada, Ontario Region
Nathan Wright Chiefs of Ontario

 

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.