Jump to main content.

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholder Forum


Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Integration Workgroup
Burlington, Ontario
June 4, 2008

Stakeholders Forum
June 4, 2008

Welcome, Introductions

John Menkedick, facilitator for the meeting, opened the meeting and introduced Gary Gulezian, Director of the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), and Danny Epstein, Regional Director of Environmental Operations, Environment Canada (EC).  Gary welcomed and thanked participants for attending the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) Stakeholder Forum.  Gary noted the new format for the meeting, consisting of substance-specific workgroup meetings prior to the Stakeholder Forum, and the Integration Workgroup meeting in the afternoon.  Gary also announced that copies of the 2007 GLBTS Annual Progress Report were available at the meeting and online at www.binational.net.  Danny welcomed participants to the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters, the venue for the meeting.  Danny noted that it was Environment Week in Canada—a week of celebration of the achievements and hard work of all Canadians who are taking action to improve the environment—and coincidentally, World Environment Day on June 5th.  Danny thanked GLBTS participants for their contributions to GLBTS activities and toward meeting the GLBTS challenge goals, of which 13 of 17 have been met, and progress has been made on the remaining four.  In addition, the GLBTS has established two new workgroups, and by June of 2009, Danny reported, options to address new chemicals are expected to be developed.

Keynote Address – New York/New Jersey Harbor Project – Final Report

John introduced the keynote speaker, Ms. Susan Boehme of the Illinois/Indiana Sea Grant program, liaison to US EPA GLNPO.  Ms. Boehme works on contaminated sediments through the Great Lakes Legacy Act and pollution prevention programs.  Ms. Boehme was director of the New York/New Jersey Harbor Project from 2000 to 2005.  The project recently completed its work.  Ms. Boehme presented the project findings. 

The New York/New Jersey Harbor is an economically, politically, and socially complex urban system with over 14 million people.  By comparison, the Great Lakes have 33 million people.  The New York/New Jersey Harbor is among the top 20 largest ports in the world.   

The goals of the Harbor Project were to identify ongoing pollution and identify strategies to reduce those loadings by:

  1. Tracking the flow and cycling of mercury, cadmium, PCBs, dioxins, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and later in the project, suspended solids;
  2.  Identifying pollution prevention strategies to reduce contaminant loadings, resulting in an ecologically healthy and economically viable harbor; and
  3. Promoting implementation of these strategies.

The Harbor Project involved an open stakeholder process that promoted a diversity of sponsors and increased trust.  Approximately 40 to 50 stakeholders remained with the project for 10 years. 

The Harbor Project employed principles of industrial ecology, a systems-based approach to the interrelationships of anthropogenic systems and their impact on the environment that encompasses material and substance flow accounting, mass balance, and life cycle analysis.  For each contaminant, system interactions were modeled to obtain both a qualitative understanding of the interactions within the economy and between it and the environment, and a quantitative perspective of the magnitude of contaminant flows, in order to gauge possible impacts on the environment. 

Research findings for mercury showed that dental facilities were the largest source of total releases to all media (air, solid waste, wastewater) within the watershed.  Other sources of mercury release included hospitals, households, auto switches, fluorescent lamps, laboratories, and thermostats.  Of all mercury released within the watershed (~9,000 kg/yr), a little over 10% (960 kg) was estimated to enter the Harbor.  Approximately half of all mercury entering the Harbor comes from wastewater, but this pool contributes most of the methyl mercury; mercury can also be methylated once in the Harbor.  Methyl mercury is bioaccumulative and is formed from inorganic mercury by the action of anaerobic organisms that live in aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, wetlands, sediments, soils, and the open ocean—and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). 

The project motivated several actions to address mercury concerns, including:

Cadmium was the second contaminant analyzed in the Harbor Project.  Cadmium-containing products include rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries and fertilizer.  The major use of cadmium is in nickel-cadmium batteries, but recycling rates are low and the number of batteries imported in products is unknown (no longer reported).  Cadmium in the Harbor was found to have declined over the past 10-30 years due to changes in the level of industrial activity in the region and better environmental management.  However, New Jersey observed an upward trend of cadmium in wastewater.  Actions resulting from the project included a rule passed by New York City in 2006 that required all rechargeable batteries to be recycled. 

The Harbor Project completed an analysis of PCBs and published a report in 2005.  Results of a mass balance computation revealed that upriver sources contributed approximately 50% to 55% of inputs to the Harbor, primarily due to a large PCB Superfund site upstream, and local inputs contributed 45% to 50%.  Products containing PCBs included small capacitors in fluorescent lamp ballasts and older household appliances, paints, carbonless paper, pigments and dyes, glossy paper with special inks, kaofin, and flocculants used at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).  The cumulative impact of small capacitors was discovered to be a key source of PCBs that was previously overlooked:  60-70 metric tons of PCBs from small capacitors were estimated to be disposed to the watershed in next 5 to 10 years.  The inadvertent generation of PCBs (water treatment flocculants, pigments and paints) was estimated to account for approximately 10% to 15% of current PCB loadings.  The impact of 179 Superfund sites in the Harbor region was found to be significant.  The report also identified uneven reporting requirements for usage/disposal of PCB-containing equipment (e.g., large capacitors) and limited recycling opportunities. 

Actions to address PCBs to the Harbor included:

  1. Working with POTWs to reduce the use of PCB flocculants;
  2. Providing Best Management Practices to pigment and paint manufacturers and POTWs; and
  3. Contacting utilities to provide serial numbers of PCB-contaminated mineral oil transformers likely to be contaminated, so that necessary precautions could be taken.

The Harbor Project completed an analysis of dioxins and published a report in 2006.  Dioxins are a ubiquitous product of combustion.  In the past, waste incinerators and paper/pulp production were the largest sources until regulations prompted changes in industrial processes and air pollution controls.  Currently, the largest sources of dioxins are those involving uncontrolled burning, including structural fires and residential waste burning.  Contaminated sites and PCB spills/disposal also account for a large percentage of dioxin releases.  Products containing dioxins include certain weed killers and any PCB-containing product such as small capacitors, old paint, and lamp ballasts.  A new finding was the importance of fires in solid waste facilities. 

The project developed a number of pollution prevention strategies to reduce dioxins.  These included:

  1. Reducing the volume of waste;
  2. Never using ash as fertilizer;
  3. Properly disposing of products that may contain PCBs (e.g., old paint, old appliances, lamp ballasts); and
  4. Pressing for a ban against trash burning in New York

The Harbor Project completed an analysis of PAHs and published a report in 2007.  Materials and products containing PAHs include used-motor oil, driveway sealants (with coal tar), heating oil, creosote (wood preservative), and dandruff shampoo (with coal tar as an ingredient).  Processes that release PAHs include vehicle driving, wood stoves and outside boilers, waste burning, and tire combustion.  Sources were prioritized for pollution prevention deliberation as follows:  coal-tar sealants, creosote-treated wood, tire wear, oil leaks, residential fuel combustion (wood and fossil fuel), vehicle emissions, non-road/stationary engine emissions, used motor oil disposal, and oil spills.   

Actions to be taken were identified for coal-tar sealants and creosote-treated wood.  Sealants are used to protect asphalt surfaces (i.e., parking lots and driveways).  Coal-tar sealants cause concern because they contain PAHs (approximately 5% wet weight), they abrade from the surface over time and may be transported via runoff.  Sealants must be reapplied every 1-5 years, providing a continual source of PAHs to the watershed.  Creosote contains approximately 80% PAHs.  In 2004, 87 million gallons of creosote were used in the U.S. to treat wood:  railroad ties (55% of total creosote uses), utility poles (30%), fence posts (14%), and marine pilings (0.17%).  New York State and New Jersey State approved legislation to ban the use of creosote-treated wood in marine environments. 

Suspended solids were identified as a potential source and transport of contaminants impacting the Harbor.  Suspended solids were included in the project to identify additional opportunities to curb pollutant loads to the Harbor and its watershed, and to reduce the impacts of particles on the Harbor.  Suspended solids have many adverse effects in the Harbor (on water availability, dredging, recreation, biota) and can sometimes be considered as pollutants.  The scope of research on suspended solids was to identify activities on land that had the potential to contribute suspended solids to the watershed; characterize the level of activity for each sector; and compile best management practices to curb pollutant loads to the watershed, reducing the impacts of particles on the Harbor. 

The project applied watershed-based modeling to estimate the impacts of suspended solids.  The analysis provided a broad view of particle movement that integrated the direct and indirect impacts of land use decisions and resource consumption patterns on pollution.  For example, urban sprawl increases imperviousness and thus stormwater runoff, increasing streambank erosion and the transport of pollutants on the land surface.  The suspended solids report, published in 2008, identified practices and technologies to reduce suspended solids loadings; identified barriers to implementation of stormwater management practices, and drafted recommendations to address them; and provided an integrated view of the impacts of land use and resource consumption on pollution to water. 

The six Harbor Project reports, as well as other publications, reports, outreach materials, and maps, are downloadable at: http://www.nyas.org/programs/harbor.asp.  


1.  Question (Sue Brauer, US EPA, Region 5):  Does New York or New Jersey regulate used oil?

Response (Susan Boehme):  Spilled oil is a large source of PAHs, but it is uncertain whether New York or New Jersey regulates used oil.

2.  Question (Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries):  Could you elaborate on the bounty that auto manufacturers are required to pay for mercury switches?

Response (Susan Boehme):  At intermediary auto crushing facilities, auto switches are removed.  The bounty provides an incentive to remove mercury-containing switches before the auto is sold to a smelter.  A pilot program in New York was not too successful.  New Jersey tried to learn from New York’s experience in implementing its rule.

3. Question (Gary Gulezian, US EPA GLNPO):  Regarding the increased methyl mercury loadings from WWTPs, did the project look at the Harbor?

Response (Susan Boehme):  We looked at WWTP inputs and outputs.  The Harbor was the baseline factor.  Qualitatively, we found that more methyl mercury comes from WWTPs.  We also found that older mercury is less reactive, affecting the amount of methyl mercury that is present.

4.  Question (Lin Kaatz Chary, Northwest Indiana Toxics Action Project):  Could you elaborate on small quantity generators that release PCBs?

Response (Susan Boehme):  We looked at small capacitors, where they might be found (e.g., in refrigerators and other appliances), their lifetime (e.g., 15 years), and disposal (e.g., whether crushed on the street or at an incinerator).  We discovered that a significant amount of PCB oil comes from small capacitors.  Our recommendations from this finding were to be able to track products (regardless of whether they are banned), and to eliminate crushing of appliances on the street.

5. Question (Mike Murray, National Wildlife Federation):  Were Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) developed, and what was your relationship to those? 

Response (Susan Boehme):  One project member is working with EPA Region 2 on TMDLs.  Also, we worked with the Delaware Basin, which uses the TMDL approach and industrial ecology to track down PCBs in the Delaware River.  TMDLs were not developed as part of the Harbor Project.


Impact of Intercontinental Atmospheric Transport of Lindane on the North American Environment

John Menkedick introduced Dr. Jianmin Ma of EC.  Dr. Ma received his Ph.D. from James Cook University in Australia in 1995.  He completed post-doctoral work in the Air Quality Modeling section of EC before becoming a full-time Research Scientist with EC.  Dr. Ma has been working on numerical modeling and assessment of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and their fate in the Great Lakes region.

Dr. Ma presented the results of a modeling study conducted by EC to investigate the impact of intercontinental atmospheric transport of lindane on the North American environment.  Two models were used in the investigation:  Canadian Model for Environmental Transport of Organochlorine Pesticides (CanMETOP) and Multi-compartment Environmental Diagnostics and Assessment (MEDIA).  Slight modifications were made to the MEDIA model to increase confidence in the results.

Previous projects that informed this study were the China/Canada joint project on the reduction of lindane usage in China and its impact on North America, conducted from 2005 to 2008; and Global Air Passive Sampling (GAPS).

banned the use of lindane in the early 1980s, and emissions have declined significantly since then.  However, the GAPS study measured high air concentrations of lindane in China between December 2004 and March 2005 that might be impacting North America.  Modeled daily air concentrations of lindane at 1500 m height reveal one outflow of lindane from China and one from West Africa to North America.

Estimations of the global lindane budget show high concentrations in Canada, China, India, and Western Europe.  Model predictions also show that colder regions receive POPs.  Simulations of trans-Pacific atmospheric transport events show that plumes of lindane move across the Pacific from southern China to North America, primarily in the spring of the year.  Satellite images support these model predictions.  Western winds are thought to dominate the trans-Pacific transport of lindane. The following conditions are conducive to trans-Pacific atmospheric transport:

Trans-Atlantic atmospheric transport of toxics has also been shown to occur.  Trans-Atlantic transport is caused by two easterly wind regimes at relatively low atmospheric levels (at and below 3000 m) across the North Atlantic, extending from West Africa and the subtropical eastern Atlantic to the Caribbean and the southern U.S.  These two wind regimes are North Atlantic easterly trade winds and West African easterly jet/waves.  Satellite images provide supporting evidence for trans-Atlantic transport of dust, similar to the transport of lindane.

Model simulations estimate daily air concentrations of lindane during trans-Atlantic transport events (e.g., in July and October 2005), indicating movement from West Africa to the east coast of the U.S.  Analysis of the impact of transport events on the Great Lakes indicates that the impact of Asian and West African sources, though relatively small compared to North American sources, cannot be overlooked.  While the models have not been verified, the results suggest that North America is sandwiched between Asia and Africa, receiving toxic air concentrations from the west and the east.


1.  Question (Allan Jones, Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council):  Is the trans-Atlantic transport of particulate matter similar to the movement of lindane?  Why would the transport of lindane follow the same pathway as particulate matter?

Response (Dr. Ma):  No chemical reaction occurs with lindane, and it is persistent—its halflife is ~4 months in air.

Response (Mike Murray):  Lindane would be largely in the gas phase in air, and its movement would likely be more gaseous diffusion than particle-bound transport, as is the case with particulate matter.

2.  Question (Mike Murray):  Transport seems to represent a continuous source of lindane for several months at a time.  Is it unusual to see distinct episodes?

Response (Dr. Ma):  The wind is not always strong enough to transport air concentrations across the ocean.  Episodes of strong winds for 7 to 12 days allow continuous transport during an event.


Reporting on the Strategy

Mercury Workgroup

Bob Krauel of EC, the Canadian co-chair of the Mercury Workgroup, provided an update of Mercury Workgroup activities.  Bob recognized Alexis Cain of US EPA, the U.S. co-chair of the Mercury Workgroup.  Bob began by reviewing the status of progress toward Canada’s mercury reduction challenge.  Toward a challenge goal of a 90 percent reduction in the release of mercury, or where warranted the use of mercury, in the Great Lakes Basin, Canada has reduced releases slightly more than 90 percent (as of 2006), from a 1988 baseline.  Recently, mercury releases in Ontario have been reduced significantly in the coal-fired electric generation sector.  Other sectors contributing to reductions in mercury releases in Ontario include industrial, municipal, and paint and fungicides. 

Toward the GLBTS challenge goals of a 50 percent reduction in the use and air emissions of mercury nationwide, the U.S. has achieved greater than 50 percent reductions in both the use and release of mercury—meeting the challenge goals.

The largest reductions in U.S. mercury emissions have resulted from controls on medical waste incinerators and municipal waste combustors as well as reductions in mercury inputs to incinerators and reductions by the chlor-alkali sector.  The largest remaining sources of mercury emissions in the U.S. are coal-fired utilities and industrial boilers. 

Mercury use in the U.S. has been reduced significantly, most notably by the chlor-alkali sector.  Other sectors, such as lighting and dental, have reduced the use of mercury as well.Recent workgroup accomplishments include a number of regional programs:

 Next steps for the Mercury Workgroup include continuing to share information about cost-effective reduction opportunities; tracking environmental progress; collecting stakeholder input on the development of a Mercury Emissions Reduction Strategy under the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration; and examining alternatives to face-to-face meetings for sharing information.  The workgroup discussed interest in other approaches for sharing information, such as web-based meetings or focused two-day meetings that are held periodically (e.g., every 2 years).  Before the December workgroup meeting, the workgroup co-chairs will consult with stakeholders regarding a new meeting format.

HCB/B(a)P Workgroup

Tom Tseng of EC, the Canadian co-chair of the HCB/B(a)P Workgroup, provided an update on the HCB/B(a)P Workgroup.  Tom recognized Steve Rosenthal of US EPA, the U.S. co-chair of the workgroup.  Tom began by summarizing the Burn Barrel Subgroup update given by Anita Wong at the previous day’s workgroup meeting.  The Burn Barrel Subgroup was assumed by the HCB/B(a)P Workgroup after the Dioxin/Furan Workgroup was suspended.  In the past six months, the subgroup co-chairs met with the eight Great Lakes and Province of Ontario regarding their open burning efforts and the usefulness of the Burn Barrel Subgroup.  As a result of those discussions, the co-chairs decided to continue the subgroup and drafted a new path forward that expands upon the original scope of the subgroup.

Tom presented the status of progress toward U.S. and Canadian GLBTS challenge goals for HCB and B(a)P.  The U.S. has met its commitments.  B(a)P emissions in the Great Lakes states have been reduced by 77 percent from 1996 to 2001.  The U.S. has also reduced HCB emissions; however, the exact reduction in HCB emissions from 1990 to 1999 is uncertain due to differences in inventory estimation methods over the time period.  HCB emissions in the U.S. declined 28 percent from 1999 to 2002 using comparable National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data.  Canada has more work to accomplish to meet its challenge goals of 90 percent reductions in HCB and B(a)P.  Relative to a 1988 baseline, Canada has reduced B(a)P emissions by 52 percent and HCB emissions by 73 percent.  Further reductions of HCB in Ontario may be difficult—total emissions are only 13.5 kg (~30 lbs).

More up-to-date information is expected soon that will improve the B(a)P and HCB inventories for the Great Lakes region.  Current estimates indicate that Canada contributes approximately one-third of B(a)P releases to the Great Lakes Basin, and the U.S. contribution is two-thirds.  Updated B(a)P estimates are being developed for the Great Lakes states as part of the Great Lakes Regional Toxic Air Emissions Inventory.  Improved estimates for the iron and steel sector in Ontario are being developed by the national Office of Pollution Prevention in Canada.  A 2008 update of the NEI HCB inventory in the U.S. is expected by 2010.

Recent activities to reduce B(a)P included:

The workgroup has investigated problems with coal tar sealants.  Coal tars and coal tar pitches are a “known human carcinogen” according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Coal tar sealants are a source of PAHs in stormwater runoff, and PAH “hot spots” are commonly found in streams adjacent to parking lots with coal tar sealants.  Coal tar sealants from parking lots have been shown to dominate PAHs loadings to watersheds.  Options to address this problem include restrictions on the sale and use of coal tar sealants.

The outlook for the U.S. in terms of continuing to reduce B(a)P and HCB releases includes the following planned activities:
Tom emphasized that by grouping burn barrels, wood stoves, and outdoor wood-fired boilers together, the workgroup hopes to have an impact on emissions through outreach to users.

Activities planned to reduce B(a)P and HCB emissions in Canada include:

PCB Workgroup

Ken De of EC, the Canadian co-chair of the PCB Workgroup, presented an update of PCB Workgroup activities.  Ken acknowledged Tony Martig of US EPA, the U.S. co-chair of the PCB Workgroup, who was not present at the meeting.  Ken reviewed the GLBTS challenge goals for PCBs:  to achieve 90 percent reductions of high-level PCBs in each country (> 500 ppm in the U.S. and > 10,000 ppm in Canada); and to accelerate destruction of stored high-level PCB wastes (in Canada) and ensure proper management and disposal of PCBs removed from use (in the U.S.). 

Ken described U.S. and Canadian progress toward those goals.  In Ontario, as of January 2007, 90.2 percent of high-level PCBs in storage had been destroyed since 1993 (about 2,307 tonnes remaining).  Less than 400 PCB storage sites remain in Ontario (including federal and non-federal), down from approximately 1,575 in 1993.  For PCBs in service, the Canadian target remains to be met.  Approximately 70 percent of high-level PCBs in service have been destroyed since 1989 (about 2,771 tonnes remain in use/service).  For PCBs still in service in Ontario, it is likely that the 90 percent reduction target can be met by 2014 (with the assistance of new PCB regulations).

As part of Canada’s PCB Recognition and Award program, two organizations received awards during 2007 for achieving the GLBTS goal voluntarily:  City of Toronto and Dofasco, an integrated steel company in Hamilton, Ontario.  A total of eight companies have received awards to date.  With the mandated decommissioning of PCB equipment in Canada, the PCB Recognition and Award program was discontinued.

The U.S. is believed to have met the GLBTS goal of a 90 percent reduction nationally of high-level PCBs (> 500 ppm) in service.  According to the PCB Transformer Registration Database, updated in August 2006, only about 14,700 PCB transformers were registered with US EPA.  According to annual disposal data, at the end of 2005, an estimated 73,000 PCB transformers and 1,294,000 large PCB capacitors remained in use in the U.S.  This estimate was obtained by subtracting the annual disposal data from the 1994 estimated baseline.  US EPA is considering using better information to update the current baseline.

stakeholder efforts to phase out PCBs included:
Next steps and future work for the PCB Workgroup are expected to include:
More information about Canada’s PCB regulations can be found at http://www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/regulations/DetailReg.cfm?intReg=105.


1.  Question (Mike Murray):  Why is creosote-treated wood not included in the B(a)P inventory for the U.S. Great Lakes states?

Response (Steve Rosenthal):  The Great Lakes Commission prepares the B(a)P inventory for the U.S. Great Lakes states.  Creosote-treated wood appears to be an omission from the inventory, as the New York/New Jersey Harbor Project suggests that it is a source of B(a)P.  The source and its emissions need to be investigated.

2.  Question (Dennis Leonard, Detroit Edison):  There is a lack of public involvement in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Mercury Emissions Reduction Strategy, and no opportunity for public comment was provided on the goals set in the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration report.

Response (Alexis Cain):  Except for a general goal to reduce mercury emissions where possible, goals have not been set for the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Mercury Emissions Reduction Strategy.  However, discussion of specific goals for the strategy is an option, in keeping with the spirit of the GLBTS, when it is practical to do so.

3.  Question (Dale Phenicie):  What do you foresee as the stakeholder involvement process for the Mercury Emissions Reduction Strategy?

Response (Alexis Cain):  As instructed by the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration committee, the governments plan to develop an assessment of major emission sources and sectors and draft recommendations for action.  The governments will solicit input from stakeholders before implementing the recommendations that are developed.

Substance and Sector Workgroups

Edwina Lopes of EC, the Canadian co-chair of the Sector Workgroup, provided a summary of the June 2-3 Substance and Sector Workgroup meeting.  Edwina acknowledged the other workgroup co-chairs:  Suzanne Easton of EC, the Canadian co-chair of the Substance Workgroup; Ted Smith of US EPA, the U.S. co-chair of the Substance Workgroup; and Frank Anscombe of US EPA, the U.S. co-chair of the Sector Workgroup. 

Edwina presented a summary of stakeholder comments voiced at the June 2-3 meeting.  Stakeholders commented on:

Concerning the elements of a strategic plan, the mission of the two workgroups can be adopted from Article II(a) and Annex 12 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), which includes a broad charge to address “toxic substances in toxic amounts.”  The mission would generally involve exploring threats to the Great Lakes Basin, complementary to national programs.

For the scope, the governance model contained within the GLBTS agreement (4-step process) will serve as a model.  The workgroups can consider, but not be limited by, the full scope of chemicals being examined by national programs.  EC and US EPA in cooperation with their partners will periodically examine progress toward meeting current obligations and exploring whether new substances may present threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem and therefore should be considered for action.

The workgroup objectives are defined in the terms of reference that were previously developed for the workgroups.  Similarly, the operating principles are defined in the terms of reference.

The draft decision framework presented at the June 2-3 meeting will be refined and presented for comment by September 2008.

The strategic approach for the two workgroups will follow a two-pronged approach that is differentiated by the extent of information currently available for candidate substances:
  1. Seek to identify candidate substances for which existing information is available (“Now”).  This will be accomplished by looking at available information and subsequently proposing substances, based on the framework (and consistent with national programs).  Management options will then be considered for candidate substances and recommendations made for substances/actions.
  2. Seek to indentify candidate substances for which additional information needs to be developed (“Future”).  This will involve monitoring, surveillance, and research programs.

At the September workgroup meeting, the governments will present an overview of pertinent programs with Great Lakes Basin data and outline how the Great Lakes data can be used.  The workgroup co-chairs will develop a work plan for the Great Lakes Screening and Surveillance program (Howard/Muir) that includes scope, objectives, details, and timelines.

Regarding the need for additional stakeholder participation, the co-chairs propose to continue to engage stakeholders as the process proceeds, hold face-to-face meetings concurrent with Integration Workgroup meetings, and commit to one conference call between quarterly GLBTS meetings.

Regarding the need to engage the public, the co-chairs would like stakeholders to indicate the type of public engagement that is necessary, beyond the quarterly GLBTS meetings that are open to the public.  A valuable role for GLBTS stakeholders is to further engage their constituents and provide feedback to the workgroups.


1.  Question (Allan Jones):  Do the workgroups truly intend to consider substances outside of national programs, or substances that differ from national priorities?

Response (Edwina Lopes):  There are differences between the national programs in Canada and the U.S., and the co-chairs wanted to allow flexibility in considering substances outside of these programs if a threat is identified in the Great Lakes Basin.  The feeders in the draft framework diagram indicate other potential sources of substances for consideration (e.g., Great Lakes surveillance programs).

2.  Question (Lin Kaatz Chary):  The non-governmental organizations (NGOs) believe that GLWQA Article II(a) is not a broad mandate but a charge to prohibit the discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts, “discharge” being a key word.  The mission of the workgroups should include prevention of the discharge of toxic substances. 

Response (Gary Gulezian):  The intent was not to limit the workgroups to persistent toxics but to consider any toxic substance, including a broader range of toxic substances than the Level 1 GLBTS substances.  GLWQA is the driver, which includes a requirement for the virtual elimination of toxic substances, although the definition of virtual elimination is subject to debate.


Danny Epstein and Gary Gulezian provided closing remarks, and John Menkedick concluded the Stakeholder Forum. 

Presentations of the Stakeholder Forum and substance-specific workgroup meetings are available at https://www.epa.gov/glnpo/bns/index.html.


Krysta-Lee Anderson Environment Canada
Frank Anscombe US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Bob Bailey Bailey Associates
Blaine Belleau Chiefs of Ontario
Susan Boehme Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant
Sue Brauer US EPA Region 5
Christine Brunski Environment Canada
Alexis Cain US EPA Region 5
R. Carpita Environment Canada
Greg Carreau Environment Canada
Lin Kaatz Chary Northwest Indiana Toxics Action Project/Great Lakes United
Steve Clement Environment Canada
Sam Daggupaty   Environment Canada
Ken De Environment Canada
Conrad de Barros Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Fe de Leon Canadian Environmental Law Association
Marie-Claire Doyle Environment Canada
Suzanne Easton Environment Canada
Danny Epstein Environment Canada
Fred Granek Oceta
Gary Gulezian US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Susan Humphrey Environment Canada
Ana Jaramillo-Lopez Environment Canada
Allan Jones Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council
Alison Kennedy Environment Canada
Bruce Kirschner International Joint Commission
Bob Krauel Environment Canada
George H. Kuper Council of Great Lakes Industries
Dennis Leonard Detroit Edison
Victor Li Environment Canada
Edwina Lopes Environment Canada
Sridhar Marisetti Environment Canada
John Menkedick Battelle
Shawn Michajluk Environment Canada
Michael Murray National Wildlife Federation
Martin Nantel Environment Canada
Dale Phenicie Council of Great Lakes Industries
Denis Pineault Environment Canada
Elizabeth Rezek Environment Canada
Jim Roewer Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Steve Rosenthal US EPA Region 5
Sandy Rossi Environment Canada
Elisabeth Sabo Environment Canada
Mary Ellen Scanlon Environment Canada
Julie Schroeder Ontario Ministry of the Environment
J. Sifton Environment Canada
Ted Smith US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Nancy Stadler-Salt Environment Canada
Evelyn Strader Council of Great Lakes Industries
Amy Thomas Battelle
Tom Tseng Environment Canada
Raymond Vaughan New York State Attorney General’s Office
Alan Waffle Environment Canada
E. Marie Wines US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
Savio Wong Ontario Ministry of the Environment



Local Navigation

Jump to main content.