• You are here: EPA Home
> Great Lakes >  Great Lakes Pollution Prevention and Toxics Reduction > Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy>  Meetings > 2008 June Stakeholder Forum > Substance and Sectors: Summary   

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Stakeholder Forum

Integrated Workgroup Meeting
Canadian Centre for Inland Waters

Burlington, Ontario
June 2-3, 2008 

Monday, June 2nd
Welcome and Introductions

John Menkedick, Battelle, facilitator for the meeting, welcomed everyone to the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy (GLBTS) Substance/Sector Workgroup meeting.  John provided a few introductory remarks and outlined the agenda for the three days of GLBTS meetings in Burlington.  John then invited participants around the room to introduce themselves.

What We Have Heard So Far  

Suzanne Easton, Environment Canada (EC), explained the purpose of her presentation:  to summarize comments heard to date from stakeholders through conference calls, meetings, and other forms of communication since the inception of the two new groups.  The co-chairs of the two groups would like to ensure that stakeholders’ valuable input has been captured and understood. 

• The co-chairs will consider stakeholder input in subsequent work of the two new groups.
• General stakeholder comments heard to date include:
  • Rely on/align with existing national programs but do not be limited by them (recognize limitations, avoid redundancy/duplication of effort, consider workload issues).
  • GLBTS does not have the capacity to undertake a program similar to those being pursued at the national level, but information resulting from national programs could be absorbed and applied to the Great Lakes Basin.
  • Further work should focus on risk-based ecosystem and human health priorities identified for the region and ensure that any measures pursued will result in significant progress in addressing these priorities.
  • Increase emphasis on precautionary methodology—weight of evidence and hazard potential rather than solely on the basis of a quantitative risk model.
  • Further work should only be undertaken by the GLBTS if that work capitalizes on the unique characteristics of the program:  consensus on the issue(s) to be addressed; targets and timelines to be met with voluntary measures.
  • Analytical methods are crucial to identifying substances of concern to the Great Lakes Basin.
  • Need to create linkages with other programs (i.e., state/provincial, binational, international, etc.).
  • Process should move forward quickly and adhere to original timeline.
  • Scope should include effective public engagement and public reporting mechanism in the programs.
  • Adequate time needs to be allocated for discussion of significant issues and process.
  • Program objectives need to be reviewed, modified, and appropriately re-established as part of any effort to address new substances.
• Comments specific to the Substance Workgroup:
  • Importance of developing a mechanism for the identification of substances of concern (define criteria, focus on inclusion rather than exclusion).
  • Use results of national programs, but not be limited by them, as other properties should be considered.
  • No need to conduct parallel or separate substance assessment operations within the Great Lakes Basin.
  • Consideration should be given to substances that might not be captured by national programs (i.e., byproducts).
  • Substances should not be identified for action based only on high volume data.
  • Further work related to chemicals should be based on a thorough analysis of whether levels of the substance are present in the Great Lakes at levels likely to present consequential risk to human health or the environment.
  • Include a process for identifying chemicals through environmental monitoring programs.
  • Consideration should be given to “bioaccumulative” substances.
  • Consideration should be given to the additive effects of multiple chemicals.
  • Chemicals should be considered in the context of all other existing environmental stressors.
  • Relating exposure to health outcomes may influence the prioritization of substances.
  • Should include a parallel process for the identification and promotion of safer alternatives where the societal value of a particular use has been demonstrated.
  • Identify priority chemicals for research and development where no alternatives or substitutes currently exist.
• Comments specific to the Sector Workgroup:
  • Substances need to be identified before deciding whether a sectoral strategy will work and how substances should be addressed.
  • Linkages need to be made between national programs and sectoral initiatives in the Great Lakes Basin.
  • Avoid duplication of effort/redundancy.
  • Coordinate timing, where appropriate.
  • Sector-based approach may generate challenges related to confidential business information/trade secrets.
  • Consideration should be given to how efficiency of operations and competitiveness will factor into a sectoral approach.
  • Clear guidelines and rules of engagement need to be established to assist in determining how the process will be advantageous over other implementation means.
  • Consideration should be given to the development of sector-specific schedules for targeted substances.
  • Consideration should be given to substitution where alternatives already exist.
• Comments regarding management opportunities:
  • Scope should include the development and implementation of action plans outlining explicit deadlines.
  • Need for early action on problematic substances, even where complete information is not available.
  • Need to recognize the value of regional efforts and consider innovative options and substances that are not captured in federal programs.
  • Consideration should be given to the role of green chemistry within the GLBTS forum.
  • Development and promotion of suitable alternatives should be considered in the development of a management regime.
  • Should provide sufficient technical and financial assistance to support effective implementation of action plans.
  • Reliance on pro-active and aggressive prevention:  select front-of-pipe over end-of-pipe strategies.

Context for Substance Workgroup 

Ontario:  Prioritization of Chemical Substances within a Toxics Reduction Strategy 

Julie Schroeder, Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE), introduced herself and provided an overview of the Ontario governments’ commitments for a Toxics Use Reduction Strategy. 

• The Ontario government has committed to:
  • Develop new toxics reduction legislation by fall 2008;
  • Work with Cancer Care Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association to address carcinogens in the Ontario environment;
  • Provide funding and technical assistance to industry for technology development/green chemistry initiatives;
  • Ban the cosmetic use of pesticides across the province; and
  • Appoint an expert panel to support development of the legislation and overall strategy.
• Early thinking regarding toxics reduction legislation includes:
  • Reporting of use and emissions for prioritized chemicals;
  • Pollution prevention planning/reduction actions; and
  • Community-Right-To-Know component to inform the public of the use and emission of prioritized chemicals.
• Early thinking regarding research and technical assistance includes:
  • Funding for research into alternatives (e.g., green chemistry) and innovative technologies; and
  • Technical assistance for small businesses.
• Early thinking on education and outreach includes:
  • Development of a toxics information portal to inform the public of exposure to toxics in their environment; and
  • Outreach to industry on the benefits of toxics use reduction.
• An external expert panel, appointed by the Minister of the Environment, includes approximately 12 medical and scientific experts.  The panel advises on:
  • How the government should best address Bisphenol-A (BPA);
  • Priority substances for action under a Toxics Use Reduction Strategy; and
  • Development of toxics legislation and other elements of the Strategy.
• Federal, national, and provincial chemicals assessment and management in Canada begins with the federal Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) and is influenced by regulation, voluntary codes of practice, and guidelines that impact chemical substances, industrial chemical use, industrial and municipal releases, waste, and consumer products.
• While a provincial Toxics Use Reduction Strategy is in early development stages, the Strategy will include toxics in air, land, water, and consumer products. 
  • The number and type of substances targeted for action will depend on the objective of the legislation or specific program.
  • MOE is screening chemicals in a number of different ways to inform prioritization in Ontario:  1) current industrial emissions, 2) environmental presence, and 3) residential sources and exposure.
  • Challenges in this screening process include a lack of analytical methods and limited information regarding exposure for some chemicals.
• Links to other programs are being undertaken in parallel with MOE, including:
  • GLBTS Substance/Sector Workgroup
    1. Committed to the binational process through the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA).
    2. Is a mechanism for delivery of provincial Great Lakes objectives.
    3. Substances and sectors identified under GLBTS are relevant to provincial regulatory and monitoring programs.
  • Federal CMP addressing priority substances in the Great Lakes Basin
    1. Environment Canada is conducting an analysis of Ontario sectors associated with CMP high and medium priority substances.
    2. High and medium priority substances in Ontario are associated with 28 sectors.
    3. Provides opportunities for engagement of industry or a potential sector approach under COA.
  • COA, Annex 2 goals
    1. Annex 2 – Goal to Reduce Harmful Pollutants, Result 2.3 – Develop and initiate a program for the Sound Management of Chemicals.  This involves joint federal/provincial commitments to:  identify priority substances and sectors; promote/support best management practices to reduce/eliminate production, use, or release; engage industry; carry out education and outreach to the Great Lakes community; and enhance release profiles.
    2. Annex 2 – Goal to Enhance Knowledge Regarding Sources, Fate and Impacts.  Scientific knowledge supports action on substances and sectors of concern.  Result 3.1: Research on sources, fate and impacts, including environmental monitoring, laboratory analyses, and modeling emissions and fate.  Result 3.2: Enhancing linkage of environment to human health.
• Next steps in the development of a Toxics Use Reduction Strategy include:
  • Continued collaboration with the provincial health agencies as well as federal environmental and health agencies;
  • Working on identification of CMP priorities for potential application to COA programs; and
  • Linking COA priorities to opportunities under the provincial Strategy.

Update on Great Lakes Chemical Screening Project 

Ted Smith, United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), introduced Derek Muir, EC, a researcher at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington.  Derek provided an update on a project being conducted by himself, Philip Howard, and William Meylan with funding from US EPA GLNPO.  The project aims to screen chemicals in commerce to identify new persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals in the Great Lakes for the purpose of developing an analyte list for monitoring programs.  Ted noted that this project was presented at the April 8, 2008, Substance Workgroup meeting in Chicago. 

• The goals of the study are to:
  • Develop a “North American” list of potentially persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PB&T) chemicals, with greater relevance to the Great Lakes and trans-boundary long range transport than Canadian CMP priorities.
  • Use Quantitative Structure-Property relationships, and scientific judgment, to identify chemicals in commerce that may be persistent and bioaccumulative and have not been previously measured in environmental media.
  • Include degradation products where possible (e.g., perfluoroalkyl acids).
  • Assess whether selected chemicals can be analyzed by existing methods in use for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and new PB&T chemicals in the Great Lakes.
  • Screen for various toxicity endpoints.
• Howard and Meylan developed a combined Canadian and U.S. database of ~22,000 chemicals in commerce (Howard and Meylan 2007).
  • 3,549 substances are in US EPA’s High Production Volume (HPV) program.
  • 14,458 substances are organics from US EPA’s TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) for reporting years 1986 through 2002.
  • 11,317 substances are organics from the Canadian Domestic Substances List (DSL) categorization.
  • 3,059 substances are organics that are Unknown, of Variable Composition, or of Biological Origin (UVCBs), of which 1,400 are on the DSL.
  • The total, after removing duplicates, is 22,043 substances.
• Further prioritization of these substances was conducted based on lessons learned from POPs in the Great Lakes.
  • High bioaccumulation/biomagnification potential (i.e., in top predators).
  • Persistence – sequestered in bottom sediments in the open lakes, implying a low rate of biodegradation.
  • Long range transport potential (i.e., found in mid-lake, in Lake Superior and remote lakes such as Siskiwit Lake).
  • Quantity in use and potential for emissions (i.e., open use or as an additive vs. a chemical intermediate).
• Using EPI Suite™ and expert judgment, ~600 chemicals were selected on the basis of their bioaccumulation factor (BCF), log K_aw, chemical class, and biodegradability.
  • Of the ~600 chemicals, 8% (48) were estimated to be well monitored in the Great Lakes region and Arctic;
  • 16% (98) may have been analyzed in any Great Lake, Arctic, or other environmental measurement study;
  • 66% (396) are analyzable by existing methods; and
  • 7% (43) are analyzable by LC-MS/MS ESI mode (anionic) or positive CI mode.
• Compared to EC’s CMP list of priority chemicals, 213 of the ~600 chemicals identified in this study overlap with the CMP; 387 chemicals are unique to this study.
• 429 chemicals were further evaluated to identify and estimate whether they are toxic to aquatic organisms and to mammals.  The estimation utilized:
  • Analog Identification Methodology (AIM), US EPA’s new substance assessment program that evaluates potential health effects through identification of close chemical analogs;
  • ECOSAR, a quantitative structure/activity relationship (QSAR) model that predicts aquatic toxicity; and
  • OncoLogic, a model that predicts carcinogenicity.
• The results of the toxicity screening of 429 chemicals were the following:
  • AIM identified 65% (277);
  • ECOSAR predicted 27% (115) to have high aquatic toxicity, 9.8% (42) to have moderate aquatic toxicity, and 14% (61) to have low aquatic toxicity; and
  • OncoLogic estimated 34% (146) to have low to high-moderate carcinogenic potential, and no chemicals to have high carcinogenic potential.
• Further prioritization of the 600 chemicals will be performed, including:
  • Further work to determine analyzability; and
  • QSAR screening of the remaining 171 chemicals using AIM, ECOSAR, and OncoLogic.
• Future work will include:
  • Adding chemicals from the TSCA 2006 IUR; and
  • Assessing fate, transport, and exposure potential for high release, degradation during use (intermediates); and known degradation products (e.g., perfluoroalkyl acids).

Great Lakes Environmental Monitoring Programs 

John introduced Alice Dove of EC, an environmental scientist in Water Quality Monitoring & Surveillance at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington.  Alice described environmental monitoring being conducted on the Great Lakes. 

• The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network (IADN) is a joint Canadian/U.S. monitoring program that began in 1990.  Atmospheric deposition is monitored at five master stations (two in Canada; three in the U.S.) and several satellite stations around the Great Lakes.
• The Great Lakes Surveillance Program is a ship-based surface water monitoring program with a rotating schedule on the Great Lakes.  Three cruises will be conducted this year:  one on Lake Ontario and two on Lake Superior.  Contaminants (e.g., PCBs, organochlorines, chlorobenzenes) are measured at 50 to 100 stations on each lake in the spring of the year, when the water is thoroughly mixed.
• The Fish Contaminants Surveillance Program began in 1977 by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.  It is presently operated by EC.  The program analyzes contaminants in walleye and lake trout in the Great Lakes.
• Three EC monitoring programs analyze contaminants in sediments, the dissolved phase, and whole water at fixed stations:
  • The Niagara River Water Quality Program monitors water quality in the Niagara River every two weeks, year around.
  • Wolfe Island Water Quality Program monitors water quality at Wolfe Island every four weeks, year around.
  • St. Clair/Detroit River Water Quality Program monitors water quality in the St. Clair/Detroit River every four weeks, year around.
• Tributary screening sampling, begun in response to a Lakewide Management Plan, measures recently deposited sediments in mouths of tributaries to the Great Lakes.  The sampling allows EC to track down sources in some cases and to determine whether tributaries contribute to contamination in the Lakes.
• Area of Concern (AOC) sediment investigations.
• The Canadian Wildlife Service operates the Herring Gull Egg Monitoring Program, which measures contaminants in herring gull eggs at 15 or more sites on the Great Lakes.
• The Great Lakes Sediment Assessment program assesses toxic contaminants in depositional sediments in the Great Lakes on a 10-year rotational cycle.  This year’s work is being conducted in Lake Ontario.  Data from the past 30 to 40 years are useful for trend analysis.  Archived samples are also available and can be used for assessing emerging substances.
• Policy drivers for Great Lakes monitoring work include the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), CMP, COA, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA; several annexes require monitoring), GLBTS, and Niagara River Toxics Management Plan.
• The information gathered through these monitoring programs is useful for a number of purposes:
  • To assess against criteria for sediment, water, fish, and wildlife;
  • To assess status and trend information (e.g., for legacy chemicals, trends in emerging chemicals from archived samples, and historical trends from sediment cores);
  • To identify potential sources of contamination (e.g., higher concentrations of PFOS in urban industrial areas) and sources from afar (e.g., toxaphene in Lake Superior from soil in the southern U.S.);
  • To track the success of remediation efforts at hazardous waste sites;
  • To understand the effect of global actions (e.g., IADN measurements indicated a decline in alpha-HCH since its use was banned); and
  • To aid in understanding fish and wildlife health effects (e.g., measurements of hexabromocyclododecane, a flame retardant, in herring gull eggs indicates its presence in aquatic environments and demonstrates contaminant transfer from mother to egg).

Q&A: 

1.      Question (Sue Brauer, US EPA Region 5):  Is the rotation for monitoring sediments now every five years? 

Response (Alice Dove, EC):  At present, the rotation remains every 10 years.

2.      Question (Ted Smith, US EPA GLNPO):  How is the CMP changing your workload? 

Response (Alice Dove):  The CMP is requiring us to re-prioritize programs to accommodate new compounds.  We are dropping some analytes that are less frequently detected and closing a few stations that are not used often.  Some PCB congeners will no longer be monitored.  The CMP is also resulting in greater coordination with U.S. programs.  IADN is trying to identify efficiencies.  Rather than monitor for new substances universally, the most appropriate media should be monitored first, which has occurred in the Great Lakes, and EC is beginning to implement nationally (e.g., analyzing for bisphenol A in waste).  EC is also assessing analytical capabilities, which is a major impediment to monitoring.  

3.      Question (Fe de Leon, Canadian Environmental Law Association):  Is there any coordination between the Great Lakes and northern communities? 

Response (Alice Dove):  There is no coordination specifically in the open lakes.  EC is coordinating with the U.S. in the open Great Lakes and with MOE in the near-shore zone. 

Open Discussion 

Ted Smith presented a framework diagram for identifying new substances to be addressed in the Great Lakes Basin.  The framework is based on the GLBTS Level 1 assessment framework, but it will involve a different set of substances and questions.  Ted described the basic components of the framework.  Feeders for the identification of new substances will include Derek Muir’s screening work, Canadian and U.S. inventories, CMP and the U.S. Chemical Assessment & Management Program (ChAMP), and other sources (such as Ontario Toxics Reduction Strategy, academia, and international sources).  The “Consideration for Substance Selection” section will screen for use/release/exposure and possibly overlay with the CMP.  The questions asked in this section may be the same as those in the Level 1 assessment framework.  The boxes in the present draft of the framework contain no sequential order or flow, but comments and general impressions are invited as the framework evolves into a more detailed flow diagram.   

Suzanne Easton requested comments on potential omissions from the draft framework, or suggested areas of focus for the workgroup co-chairs.  John Menkedick added that the framework, when fully developed, is intended to provide a process for the workgroup to move forward. 

1.      Comment (Dale Phenicie, CGLI):  What is the endpoint for the middle (green) section?  Why are we concerned?  How cautious should we be, and what should we be cautious about?  For substances in commerce for a particular purpose, how will the need for those substances be addressed? 

Response (Ted Smith):  The purpose of the green section is to determine whether there is a reason for concern about a substance in the Great Lakes—which will answer your questions.  At this point, the co-chairs are looking for comments on whether the framework includes the right questions to determine whether there is a potential threat to the basin and, if so, whether management options should be considered.  Part of the charge of the new workgroups is to determine the reason for concern for new substances.  In cases where there are criteria, it may be easy to define.  In other cases, concerns may be harder to define. 

Response (Lin Kaatz Chary, Northwest Indiana Toxics Action Project and Great Lakes United):  The answer to your questions can be found in GLWQA Annex 12, which provides the basis for why we should be concerned about persistent toxic substances.  One issue in Annex 12 is identification of persistent toxic substances and a second issue is actions to be taken. 

2.      Comment (Allan Jones, Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council):  Who else should be engaged as stakeholders?  The success of the GLBTS has been in engaging participants.  Decisions in the framework might require additional participants as we consider new substances. 

3.      Comment (Lin Kaatz Chary): 

1.  The green section of the framework is missing a box on hazard.
2.  The precautionary approach should be a separate box from the box labeled “Other reasons for concern.”
3. The framework should identify limitations on the quality and accuracy of information available.
4. The framework should discuss the default position when there is a lack of data and/or uncertainty.

4.      Comment (Julie Schroeder):  In the “Risk-based criteria” box, what is the significance of risk?  Some criteria are based simply on toxicity. 

Response (Ted Smith):  This box was borrowed from the GLBTS Level 1 assessment framework.  It could be revised to remove the words “risk-based.”  The intent is to compare data against available benchmarks that have been developed through a regulatory process. 

Response (Dale Phenicie):  The “Risk-based criteria” box suggests that you consider the risk of exposure to a substance.  For instance, a toxic chemical may not be used in a scenario that results in great exposure.  There would be limited concern for such a chemical. 

Response (John Jackson, Great Lakes United):  Changing the name of the “Risk-based criteria” box would help the non-governmental organizations’ (NGOs) concern about the process being only risk-based, with no precautionary consideration. 

5.      Comment (John Jackson):  Prevention should be used as criteria in identifying substances.  Substances with little presence in the environment but high hazard potential should be the focus of concern (and move through the diagram to management actions).  Recommend adding a box titled “Need for prevention.” 

6.      Comment (Fe de Leon):  The precautionary approach should be in the guiding principles, rather than in a box, to provide context for the process.

Context for Sector Workgroup

North American Sector Analysis and Commonalities

Edwina Lopes, EC, presented an analysis of North American industry sectors to identify those of potential interest in the Great Lakes Basin.

• The purpose of the analysis was to determine which sectors and substances under the CMP would potentially be of interest in the Great Lakes Basin, given the CMP Sector Strategies Approach.
• North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes were determined for 28 CMP sector groupings, which represent Canadian industry.
• North American regions were compared on an economic basis by sector and by the number of high and medium priority substances.
  • The results showed that the top three CMP sectors for Ontario and the U.S. Great Lakes States were:
    1. Metals, Metallurgical, Metal plating, Mining and Mineral Products;
    2. Printing and Writing, Pulp and Paper and Wood Products; and
    3. Industrial or Commercial Uses and Other Consumer Products.
• Mexico’s top CMP sector was Food, Beverage, and Food Packaging, which was followed by the same top three sectors found in Ontario and the U.S. Great Lakes States.
• Per CMP sector, Ontario has an average of 38% of the establishments in Canada, and the U.S. Great Lakes States have an average of 29% of sector establishments in the U.S.  This indicates that the Great Lakes region represents a sizable portion of CMP sectors.
  • Other factors to consider include product use.  Using population as a surrogate, Ontario represents 38.8% of the Canadian population, in good agreement with the sector analysis.
• An analysis of the size distribution of CMP sector establishments shows that CMP sectors in Canada and Mexico are dominated by small establishments (0 to 100 employees).  Information was not available to analyze U.S. establishments.
• An analysis of the number of establishments versus the number of high and medium priority substances in each CMP sector shows that high priority substances are dispersed throughout many CMP sectors, a few sectors have a large number of high and medium priority substances, and some sectors have many establishments while others have few.
• Comparing CMP high and medium priority substances with the 3,000 U.S. HPV substances reveals that many sectors have substances that are common to both programs.
  • One sector in particular—Petroleum, Oil Well Treatment, Drilling—has a large number of CMP high and medium priority substances (322) that are common to the HPV Program.
• A total  of 858 of the 3,000 HPV Program chemicals (28%) are common to the CMP.
  • 64 (7%) of common chemicals are high priority CMP substances;
  • 645 (76%) of common chemicals are medium priority CMP substances;
  • 112 (13%) of common chemicals are low priority CMP substances; and
  • 37 (4%) of common chemicals have already been assessed or managed.
• Of the 50 priority chemicals identified through Great Lakes surveillance (refers to the Great Lakes Chemical Screening Project being conducted by Muir, Howard, and Meylan), 10 substances are common to the CMP and ChAMP.
• Thoughts on the approach to sector strategies:
  • What process should we use to identify sectors?
  • What data are needed?  Are data available?  Are surrogate data available?
  • Where should we focus?  We could look at substances and sectors that overlap among CMP high and medium priority substances, U.S. HPV and medium production volume (MPV) substances, and Great Lakes surveillance work.

Q&A:

1.      Question (Dale Phenicie):  Regarding the 50 priority chemicals identified through Great Lakes surveillance, the term “priority” suggests that some decisions have been made concerning these chemicals, which may not be true.  Also, why is the term “surveillance” used to describe the Great Lakes Chemical Screening Project?  The project involves modeling to conduct screening based on physical/chemical properties. 

Response (Ted Smith):  The term “priority” used to refer to the chemicals screened by the Great Lakes Chemical Screening Project can be changed.  Also, while the term “surveillance” is used broadly, the Great Lakes Chemical Screening Project does employ modeling to predict persistence and bioaccumulative potential, and screening for toxicity. 

CMP Sector Strategies: Petroleum Sector

Indrani Hulan of EC described CMP sector strategies to address high priority substances in the petroleum sector. 

• Under the CMP, categorization was the first step in setting priorities for conducting risk assessments of chemical substances on the DSL.
• The categorization narrowed down the list of 23,000 substances to 4,300 substances grouped into high, medium, and low priorities.
• The CMP was launched on December 8, 2006, to address all 4,300 priorities.  More information on the CMP can be found at http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca .
• Addressing high priority substances under the CMP involves:
  • Challenge Program (for ~200 substances) that includes information gathering, screening assessment, and risk management (if needed);
  • Petroleum Sector Stream Approach for ~160 high priority substances that are set aside from the Challenge to be addressed under a sectoral approach that includes information gathering, screening assessment, and risk management (if needed);
  • Significant New Activity (SNAc) Provisions (for ~150 substances); and
  • Substances that are already in the assessment or management stream.
• High priority petroleum substances fall under two of the above initiatives:
  • Under the Challenge Program, ~58 of 200 substances were identified as potentially related to the petroleum sector. These included substances produced by the petroleum sector that are also widely used by other sectors (e.g., butane) and substances for which the petroleum sector is only one of many users;
  • Approximately 160 substances were set aside for Petroleum Sector Stream Approach because there were a large number of them, they were primarily related to the petroleum sector, and most were complex mixtures that may need to be considered differently from discrete substances.
    • It is expected that the majority of petroleum substances (~85%) are intermediate process streams (limited to petroleum sector facility sites).
• Under the Challenge Program, the Canadian government is challenging industry to provide new information about how it is managing ~200 substances that are potentially harmful to human health or the environment.
  • The government is publishing, in batches of 15-30 substances, a profile of chemical substances for industry and other stakeholders to comment on and provide information.
    • Batches are published every three months (first batch was released in February 2007), and all batches will be released within 3 years;
    • Information is gathered through a mandatory survey (targeting manufacturers, importers, and users of these substances concerning their uses, releases, and management) and a voluntary questionnaire (on general life cycle and other pertinent management issues).
  • Government scientists then publish a draft screening assessment report within 6 months (first draft reports were published in January 2008) and a final report 6 months later.
  • For substances recommended for addition to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999, a proposed risk management instrument must be proposed within 2 years and finalized within an additional 18 months.
  • The lack of complete information will not preclude government from taking action that safeguards human health and the environment.  This is an important point that provides an incentive for industry to submit information.
• Under the Challenge Program, the role of the CMP Petroleum Sector group is to:
  • Follow the progress of information gathering for the Challenge batches and gather additional information that might be needed for future risk management work (e.g., for substances related specifically to the petroleum sector, such as fuel additives);
  • Contribute (where possible) to the draft and final Screening Assessment, which proposes whether the substance is considered to be toxic as defined in CEPA; and
  • Serve as lead for petroleum sector contributions to the Risk Management “Scope” (accompanies draft screening assessment), which briefly outlines target sectors and potential type of risk management for the substance. 
  • Serve as lead for petroleum sector contributions to the Risk Management “Approach” (accompanies final screening assessment), which is more detailed and gives a clearer indication of risk management instruments being considered.
  • If a substance is recommended for addition to the List of Toxic Substances in CEPA, the government has 24 months to develop a draft risk management instrument.  We would identify additional risk management requirements (related to the petroleum sector) and lead the development of risk management instruments related to the petroleum sector.
• Under the Petroleum Sector Stream Approach, it is expected that the majority of the ~160 petroleum substances will be addressed according to the same timeline as the Challenge.
• Current activities and next steps for the ~160 high priority petroleum substances include:
  • Information Gathering – Using mandatory survey, contracts, and voluntary information submissions.
  • Screening Assessments – Compiling and analyzing data to determine if substances pose any risks.
  • Risk Management – Identifying additional risk management requirements and developing risk management instruments as needed.
• Screening assessment and risk management approach may vary depending on end-point of substances.  There are a number of scenarios to take into account, which may affect risk management approach end-use scenarios.
• Opportunities resulting from the use of an approach that is specific to the petroleum sector include:
  • Opportunity to work with stakeholders to address a large number of substances in a more innovative and efficient way;
  • Held a number of targeted meetings with industry to determine scope of the task and discuss data collection;
  • Met first with major industry associations to discuss data collection options and understand the implications involved with each option;
  • Determined that the majority of the petroleum substances are manufactured in refineries and upgraders, and not in extraction (thus eliminated one part of sector).
• Further information can be found at: http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca (click on link to “The Petroleum Sector Stream Approach”).

Q&A:

1.      Question (Frank Anscombe), US EPA GLNPO:  What was the origin of this sector?  Why weren’t other sectors selected under the CMP? 

Response (Indrani Hulan):  The petroleum sector was chosen for a sector approach due to the nature of substances and the fact that many substances were related to the petroleum sector. 

Response (Allan Jones):  The petroleum sector approach emerged not from the Challenge but from the stakeholder dialog process.  The petroleum industry realized that they had a subset of substances which were primarily associated with their sector.  The petroleum industry may not be representative of all industry sectors. 

2.      Question (Mike Murray, National Wildlife Federation):  Do the petroleum substances include byproducts or waste products? 

Response (Indrani Hulan):  Many substances are byproducts or intermediates, and not end products, but all substances must have an assigned Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number. 

U.S. Sectors and the Regulated Uses of Materials 

Frank Anscombe of US EPA, co-chair of the Sector Workgroup, discussed U.S. sectors and the regulated uses of materials. 

• The GLBTS Substance and Sector Workgroups were commissioned in the fall of 2007 without chemical goals, unlike past GLBTS workgroups.  These two new groups are exploratory for the GLBTS.
• The new workgroups are exploring whether the GLBTS can assist the CMP and ChAMP programs in Canada and the U.S.  The workgroups also decided to pursue the GLWQA goal of “early warning” screening for residues in the Great Lakes.
• For 10 years, the GLBTS has provided a forum for stakeholder discussion and the hallmark “4-step process.”
• The GLBTS has moved from an initial focus on legacy substances to a new context in the face of two national reviews of chemical uses (CMP and ChAMP).
• These reviews are on somewhat different timelines, and chemical-specific policy outcomes seem at present unknown.
  • In the U.S., regulatory actions may arise, as facts warrant, in the years ahead.
  • The U.S. review, ChAMP, will be conducted on a national basis.
  • The federal government generally will favor use of a chemical on a 50-state basis, lest restrictions on a regional basis create economic fractures.
  • ChAMP does not invite partnerships with sectors (as yet).
  • ChAMP and CMP have pledged to share technical information and to coordinate.
• How can the U.S. contribute to a GLBTS workgroup on sectors?
  • The Sector Workgroup seems downstream from the Substance Workgroup.  Chemicals identified by the Substance Workgroup may be referred to the Sector Workgroup for collaborating with stakeholders about management options. 
  • While the members of the two workgroups may differ, they should still collaborate in an integrated way.
  • Should a government/industry sector partnership in Canada (such as the petroleum industry sector approach) be emulated in the U.S.?  U.S. industry is free to collaborate with government.
• Some ChAMP substances may be outside of CMP, or vice versa.  This may offer opportunities for bilateral, regional efforts.
• Stakeholders are invited to contribute to the Sector Workgroup.  A few stakeholders brain-stormed a template for socio-economic profiles to define substances (use, fate, alternatives, etc.), similar to profiles developed by the GLBTS for the Level 1 substances.
  • Developing holistic, socio-economic profiles to explain substances sought for monitoring seems a possible activity for the Sector Workgroup.  Common substances identified in Edwina’s presentation would be first priorities (i.e., substances common to CMP, ChAMP, and Great Lakes surveillance work).
  • Discussion of “greener” chemicals is welcome, though US EPA generally does not regulate chemicals in products, foods, and drugs.  Thus, in some areas, US EPA’s scope of action may be modest.  
• Summary points:

1. U.S. participation in a Sector Workgroup is exploratory and will flexibly respond to ideas as they emerge.
2. In the future, the Substance Workgroup may refer substances to the Sector Workgroup.  A hallmark of the GLBTS has been information-sharing among stakeholders, in a 4-step process.  The Sector Workgroup could develop management options (a Step 3 report), if risk-justified pollutant concerns arise.  For now, this is only a hypothetical possibility, since it is premature to forecast discovery of actionable risks.
3. Whenever a Canadian industry and EC form a partnership, US EPA should mention this partnership to the counterpart U.S. industry, in case there may be potential lessons to be learned.
4. In each country, chemical use reviews are at early stages.  Their coordination aptly takes place at a national level, affirmed under the Security and Prosperity Partnership.  Material use regulations on a regional or sector basis are not envisioned on the U.S. side to support ChAMP, at this point in time.
5. U.S. industries are free to undertake voluntary environmental initiatives, in collaboration with Canadian counterparts, if they so choose, within their discretionary judgment.

Industry Perspectives on Chemicals Management in North America:  Integrating National Programs with Great Lakes Regional Needs 

Allan Jones, Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council, and Paul DeLeo, Soap and Detergent Association (SDA), presented a summary of industry perspectives gathered through discussions with CGLI, as the industry group most engaged in the GLBTS at present. 

• There is no need for the GLBTS to start from scratch in moving forward with the new Substance and Sector Workgroups.  Alignment with existing efforts needs to be coherent with respect to approach, timing, and processes used.
• National programs already in place include:
  • CMP Challenge is addressing ~200 high priority substances.  Every three months, a new batch of substances is released.  Industry is responding to challenges, which involves intensive engagement.
  • TSCA Inventory of 83,000 “existing” and “new” chemicals.
  • HPV Challenge has identified ~ 2,750 compounds, of which ~1,400 have been sponsored under the HPV Challenge, ~1,000 have been sponsored under the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Global Initiative, and ~350 remain orphan chemicals. 
    • SDA represents 10 consortia that sponsored chemicals under the HPV Program.  Much data are available through the HPV Program, and there are opportunities for the GLBTS to access data (e.g., for human health characteristics).  QSAR analysis can be used where data gaps exist.
  • ChAMP seeks to complete, by 2012, screening-level risk characterizations and take action, as appropriate, on 2,750 HPV and 4,000 MPV chemicals.
    • A proposed inorganic HPV Challenge Program is estimated to target 400 to 500 chemicals.
    • A proposed resetting of the TSCA inventory (established in the mid-1980s) to identify chemicals presently in commerce.
  • ChAMP hazard characterizations are available on the US EPA website.
  • ChAMP exposure characterizations are being developed – based on IUR data or other data available from HPV submissions.
  • Risk-based prioritizations (RBPs), which will guide management (risk reduction) actions, are becoming publicly available.
• The GLBTS has been a successful partnership with industry, and there are opportunities for ongoing partnerships.
• Industry participation in national programs has included:
  • Participating in Canada DSL Categorization effort by supplying chemical-specific information and assisting with risk-based prioritization process;
  • Companies and associations are now responding to the Chemical Challenge;
  • Participating in CMP Stakeholder Advisory Council;
  • Participating in HPV Challenge and TSCA inventory update programs by supplying chemical-specific hazard data and providing production, import, and use information;
  • Additional examples include Voluntary Children’s Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) and ICCA (OECD) HPV challenge programs.
• Industry knows chemical uses the best, and dialog with industry is needed to obtain that information.
• Industry will need to identify participants relevant to a Great Lakes Basin concern.
• National experience has provided guidance needed for Great Lakes protection.
• Essential elements in chemical screening programs include:
  • Hazard assessment;
  • Risk assessment (assessment of overall potential and specific nature of risks); and
  • Risk management
    • Exposure-based approach important;
    • Controls via authorized use systems;
    • Blanket prohibition on use limited to cases where other approaches are not viable.
• For the GLBTS, industry proposes that:
  • Candidate substances be selected from prioritized outcomes of national assessment programs;
  • Determine from these lists substances of significance to basin, considering uses first, then presence in the basin, exposure scenarios, and finally local risk management scenarios; and
  • Consider opportunities for action in keeping with the style and approach of the GLBTS.
• Monitoring and surveillance needs in the Great Lakes involve:
  • Candidate substances for monitoring will come from Great Lakes surveillance process;
  • Media for monitoring must be selected, which may differ by substance and must be appropriate for tracking trends; and
  • Two tracks are needed – 
    • One for substances for which appropriate environmental methods and analytical standards exist; and
    • A second for substances for which methods and standards must be developed.
• The GLBTS, properly structured, is uniquely suited for the task ahead.
• Several GLBTS process attributes are important for the “new” chemicals management task:
  • Ability to reach important stakeholders and sectors within the basin;
  • Ability to help define basin priorities; and
  • Ability to focus on priority substances for future chemicals management.
• Proposed “New” GLBTS task elements include:
  • Assemble, track, fully understand, and disseminate to participants information on the chemical assessment activities underway within the national and tri-national forums;
  • Utilize existing or seek new opportunities for GLBTS program personnel to participate in the national assessment processes;
  • Establish a process for determining substances significant to the Great Lakes;
  • Establish monitoring and surveillance program involving a two-track effort (one for existing methods and one for new methods) and a reporting system for tracking results; and
  • Define needed management actions.
• Proposed “New” GLBTS process elements include:
  • Structure workgroups to accomplish the identified tasks;
  • Conduct identified tasks within an order that takes full advantage of information generated by national and tri-national processes;
  • Utilize workgroups to energize process and report progress; and
  • Charge workgroups with responsibility to make certain that resulting management actions take full advantage of and are consistent with national program management actions.

Open Discussion

1.      Comment (Lin Kaatz Chary): 

1. Be aware that ChAMP databases may not be as comprehensive as they need to be. They may not include all needed parameters.
2. Regarding the sectoral issue, confidential business information (CBI) needs to be negotiated in the context of promoting safer alternatives because the development of substitutes should be discussed sector wide.
3. The GLBTS should be consistent with national program management actions but not limited by them.

Response (Frank Anscombe):  We do want to be consistent with national programs, but individual stakeholders may be pursuing agendas outside of EC or US EPA programs.  We are not seeking one solution for all stakeholders.

Response (Paul DeLeo):  CBI generally pertains to human health data.  The least objectionable use of CBI data would be sharing it with US EPA.  States, for example, have not been able to access CBI data.

Response (Greg Carreau, EC):  Regarding maintaining consistency with national programs, a number of ongoing activities could inform the GLBTS, and vice versa (e.g., monitoring work on new substances, update of DSL, sector-based approach for the petroleum sector, and potential new sector approaches in Canada).  Canada is also pursuing new analytical methods for new substances.

2.      Comment (Allan Jones):  The Sector Workgroup can act as a starting point for the collection of information and identification of concerns within the basin.

3.      Comment (Mike Murray, addressing Paul DeLeo):  What is the status of the 350 orphan chemicals in the HPV Program?

Response (Paul DeLeo):  The ~350 orphan chemicals are not sponsored.  US EPA will use the QSAR approach where there is not sufficient data to make characterizations.  Also, note that consortia may not represent all companies that manufacture a chemical (i.e., there are some free riders).

Response (Allan Jones):  The ~350 orphan chemicals are a broad array of substances identified through OECD and national programs.  The HPV Challenge process was established with the intent for companies to provide information where they felt it was worth the investment to generate new information.  It is not as if industry is withholding information on these substances.  At least 90% of HPV substances have been sponsored.

4.      Comment (Sue Brauer):  CBI data can be used at the state level.  As an example, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) information has been shared with states in the development of water quality standards.

5.      Comment (Ted Smith):  Regarding the new task elements proposed in industry’s presentation, the Substance Workgroup is beginning to undertake some of these tasks.  For instance, the governments are establishing a monitoring and surveillance program, and the proposed two-track effort is consistent with the governments’ current direction.  In addition, the five-year timeline for ChAMP will borrow from the DSL and IUR to develop risk profiles, which will serve as the basis for risk management activities under TSCA.  Industry’s proposed task elements reinforce the need to proceed with developing the framework for identifying new substances (presented earlier).

6.      Comment (Ted Smith):  We need to discuss the role of risk and hazard, which will impact any management scenarios that are developed.  Preferably, it need not be an either/or situation (risk or hazard).  Note that a risk-based approach is used at the national level.  There is not a national chemical management response to hazard, although voluntary approaches may be employed (e.g., green chemistry).  Risk is more regulatory in nature.

7.      Comment (Ray Vaughan, New York State Attorney General’s Office):  What is the timeline for monitoring chemicals that can be analyzed?

Response (Ted Smith):  Fish were analyzed in 2007.  Final results may be available by November 2008.

Response (Suzanne Easton):  There are existing monitoring programs in the basin.  As substances emerge from surveillance studies, some may be able to move along more quickly, for instance those with analytical methods in industry’s proposed two-track approach.

8.      Comment (John Menkedick, Battelle):  Is there any possibility of identifying a chemical to pilot test the new substance selection process?  Ten substances were identified in Edwina’s presentation as intersecting CMP, ChAMP, and Great Lakes surveillance work.  These might provide potential candidates for a pilot test.

Response (Edwina Lopes):  Several siloxanes would provide a good test case.  This would help identify issues and data gaps.

Response (Allan Jones):  The need to test the process with specific substances is understandable, but caution is urged if industry engagement is desired.  The final risk assessment process in CMP has not been completed.  It is too early in the process to expect industry to participate in the GLBTS.

Response (Ray Vaughan):  Use of the 10 common substances might depend on whether they are able to be monitored.  Is this known?  (It was not known whether these substances can be monitored.)

Response (Frank Anscombe):  We do not have background information on substances, such as environmental releases, uses, and management of wastes.

9.      Comment (Fe de Leon):  Lessons can be learned from the pilot process employed at the beginning of the DSL process (e.g., the time limitation and the reason for selecting chemicals).  The DSL pilot process faced many challenges and did not help to speed the process.  Do not identify chemicals too early.  If a pilot process is implemented for the GLBTS, it should be transparent and specify the end goal for the pilot process.

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 3^RD

Highlights from Day 1

John Menkedick presented a summary of comments from the previous day.

• What is the intent of the green section of the framework?
• What is meant by identifying a potential “threat to the basin”?
• Identifying candidate substances depends on the type of action that would be taken.
• The framework is missing a “hazard” box and a “prevention” box.
• The wording of the “risk-based criteria” box needs to be changed.
• Who else needs to be engaged in the GLBTS as it moves forward?
• Who can do what?
• To what end is this being done?
• A default position is needed when there is a lack of information and/or uncertainty.
• We need to assess the quality and adequacy of data (in ChAMP).
• We need to address CBI issues.
• What are appropriate management options?
• Which comes first, the process or substances?
• What is the extent of work needed to compare lists to help inform the process?
• We need to discuss the details of the extent of risk analysis required – when are pollution prevention or other prevention actions justified in light of incomplete risk characterization?

NGO Perspectives – Criteria for a Great Lakes Regime:  Identification and Actions for Substances of Concern

Lin Kaatz Chary, Northwest Indiana Toxics Action Project and Great Lakes United, presented a summary of NGO perspectives on the new GLBTS Substance and Sector Workgroups.

• The NGOs reaffirm the original intent of the GLBTS as the mandate of the parties to implement the intent and obligations of the GLWQA, Annex 12.
  • GLWQA specifically mandates the parties to employ practical precautionary  methodology,  defining precaution as the:

“principle of taking a cautious, environmentally conservative approach to avoid and prevent pollution, according to threats of serious or irreversible damage, even with a lack of full scientific certainty.”[1]

• The GLBTS is in a precautionary situation, which national programs, due to their limitations, cannot address.
• GLWQA’s principles of virtual elimination and zero discharge are neither impossible nor impractical as long-term goals.
• “Zero discharge means no discharge or nil input of persistent toxic substances resulting from human activity. It is a reasonable and achievable expectation for a virtual elimination strategy. The question is no longer whether there should be virtual elimination and zero discharge, but when and how these goals can be achieved.”[2]
• The GLBTS should establish a consultative process that is participatory, transparent, and accountable.
• The process to engage public stakeholders in the development of a regime within the GLBTS to identify substances of concern is fragmented.
  • Updates are provided, but no structured process between meetings;
  • No clear blueprint for how public can review information or proactively contribute to the process as activities proceed; and
  • No substantive plan exists to assure comprehensive public engagement.
• It is critical to identify when, where, and how substantive discussions will be undertaken on each activity, particularly if that activity is identified as feeding into or contributing to the overall process of screening.
  • Dedicated meetings or conference calls to discuss workgroup activities accessible to broader audience; and
  • Public comment for written responses.
• Concern for whether existing national toxics programs on which the GLBTS screening process relies adequately address the range and scope of substances that should be identified and evaluated for action in the Great Lakes.
• Recommend an integrated approach to identifying and screening substances of concern in the Great Lakes Basin.
  • Prioritize hazard over risk in classifying chemicals as targets for action including sunsetting and/or substitution;
  • Use existing data (including historical experience with similar chemicals and chemicals classes, along with laboratory data) to develop hazard profiles to help identify substances for priority action;
  • Look to other available lists to identify carcinogens and reproductive and developmental toxicants, including but not limited to such lists as:
    • The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC);
    • California Proposition 65; and
    • Canada’s Cosmetic Hot list.
  • The process should include all substances that may be relevant to the Great Lakes even if they have been identified by other jurisdictions outside the U.S. and Canada;
  • Ensure that the framework for screening substances is proactive and grounded in prevention;
  • Important characteristics for identification include:
    • persistence and/or pseudo-persistence (e.g., toxic chemicals used in sufficient quantities to cause elevated levels near release points);
    • bioaccumulative potential, and/or act as neurodevelopmental toxicants;
    • endocrine disruptors;
    • carcinogenic, reproductive or developmental toxicants;
    • respiratory toxicants; and
    • mutagenic and/or genotoxic.
• Screening protocols which rely on quantity/volume data can result in critical omissions of chemicals to the priority list.
• Where inadequate data are available, the policy of “reverse onus” should apply, with responsibility shifted to the producer and user of the chemical to demonstrate that it is not hazardous.  If this is not possible, precaution should be the default action.
  • Expert judgment should be used in the face of unconfirmed and/or as-yet-unquantified risks.
• Evidence of chemicals in wildlife and humans should serve as sentinel indicators of exposure and be given adequate weight in the screening process.
• By the time health effects are reported, exposure has occurred, chemicals are integrated into the economy/market, and their removal from use and the environment is difficult.
• NGO recommendations:
  • Complete screening to identify substances for action by June 2010.
  • Initiate development of action plans to reduce and eliminate substances of concern in January 2010, to mark the completion of screening requirements.
    • Action plans should outline benchmarks for reductions at 2- and 5-year intervals.
    • Incorporate substitution plans in action plans with timelines for implementation of safer substitutes within 2 years of completion of action plans.
  • Governments should commit dedicated financial resources to support and assure completion of technical and policy activities.
  • Adequate resources should be dedicated to support public consultation and participation in GLBTS activities.
• Implementation efforts under the current national toxics plans underpinning the GLBTS new substances process must demonstrate their efficacy in achieving the goals of zero discharge and virtual elimination as mandated by GLWQA.

Q&A:

1.      Question (Edwina Lopes):  To clarify, the CMP was not volume-based.  Why is the initiation of action plans six months prior to the end of the screening process?

Response (Lin Kaatz Chary):  The intent is that discussions regarding action plans would begin in January, six months before the screening process is completed, so that we are not starting from zero after chemicals have been identified.

2.      Question (Allan Jones):  How do we focus this process on actions that are doable within the GLBTS?  We may want to consider how to scope future GLBTS activities so that the needs of both industry and NGOs are more aligned.

Response (Lin Kaatz Chary):  It is important for the GLBTS to identify data gaps and needs and, given the limitations of the GLBTS, ask national programs to fill the gaps or address them for the Great Lakes.

3.      Question (Ray Vaughan):  What is the relative importance of screening vs. monitoring data for toxic chemicals in wildlife?

Response (Lin Kaatz Chary):  Toxicity is important.  Sometimes chemicals that were not predicted to become chemically active have been demonstrated to be (e.g., deca brominated diphenyl ether).  A balance of all tools is needed, considering which is most appropriate in a certain context.

Discussion of Path Forward

Ted Smith began the discussion by acknowledging receipt of a letter from NGOs that requested greater input to the new GLBTS process.  Ted explained that the workgroup co-chairs have been slogging through a long-term process and not much headway has been made except for the sector analysis presented by Edwina, the Great Lakes surveillance work, and development of the new substance selection framework.  The governments would like stakeholders to be engaged in the process, but he asked participants for suggestions on the public engagement process and how the workgroup should interact (if the normal quarterly meetings are not sufficient).  Edwina added that, over the past few months, conference calls have been held among the workgroup co-chairs to obtain a better understanding of each nation’s programs (CMP and ChAMP).  Outside of these, there have not been hidden conversations or workgroup conference calls.

1.      Comment (Lin Kaatz Chary):  There was no discussion of or request for stakeholder input to the screening process that has been undertaken as part of the Great Lakes Chemical Screening Project.  Stakeholders would like to be part of the co-chairs’ long-term process, regardless of how slow the process is going.  Also, it would be interesting to solicit public input on the new substance process.  The International Joint Commission (IJC) conducted a successful online submission of public comments that could be replicated by the GLBTS.

Response (Ted Smith):  Stakeholder input on the Great Lakes Surveillance Project was not solicited because the project began before the new workgroups were formed.  However, the project could be changed per stakeholder comments.

Response (Frank Anscombe):  There has not been a Sector Workgroup meeting since last December (2007).  It may be a good idea to hold quarterly conference calls to hear from stakeholders and to update the status of workgroup activities.

2.      Comment (Allan Jones):  Two suggestions –

1. The outcomes of the Great Lakes Surveillance Project and how they translate into GLBTS actions are crucial for the new GLBTS process.  This project should be advanced because it will inform monitoring efforts and guide the GLBTS sector work.

2. Another issue is timing of the GLBTS process over the next 12 to 18 months with respect to the CMP on the Canadian side and ChAMP on the U.S. side.  At present, the GLBTS can identify actions that were successful for other substances, and thus could be repeated, as well as issues that need to be addressed differently by the new GLBTS workgroups.

3.      Comment (George Kuper, CGLI):  It is frustrating to not know what the governments plan to do.  While stakeholders cannot make decisions for the governments, stakeholders can make sure that the governments make the right decisions.  The new GLBTS process needs a hierarchical strategic plan that reiterates the GLBTS mission, defines a scope, and establishes objectives and operating principles.

Response (Edwina Lopes):  The Terms of Reference for the new workgroups contain some of these strategic plan elements.  Please specify elements that are missing from the Terms of Reference or need to be clarified.

4.      Comment (George Kuper, CGLI):  The strategic plan elements are included in the Terms of Reference, but the relevant pieces should be put into a strategic plan and placed in hierarchical order because a situation analysis for screening purposes must follow the operating principles.

Response (Ted Smith):  The language in the GLWQA and GLBTS Terms of Reference is intentionally broad.  The objectives of the GLBTS Substance Workgroup, as stated in the Terms of Reference, are to:

• Continue to work toward the reduction and virtual elimination of the release of persistent toxic substances into the Great Lakes, in order to protect and ensure the health and integrity of theGreat Lakes ecosystem;
• Identify persistent toxic substances that may pose a threat to the health and integrity of the Great Lakes Basin; and
• Explore mitigation strategies, and identify management options toward addressing the release of persistent toxic substances in the Basin.

We need to define how these objectives will be achieved.  Developing a strategic plan might help to determine the goal over the next 12 to 18 months.  A work plan specific to surveillance work could be developed, with input from stakeholders.

5. Comment (Mike Murray):  With respect to the language in the GLWQA and GLBTS, there is a wide range of potential substances about which the workgroup could reasonably be concerned.  The scope of the GLBTS is not to address leftover issues that were not addressed by national programs.  The Great Lakes region has been at the leading edge for the past several decades, and we should maintain that edge by being ambitious.  The GLBTS has the potential to influence national programs, for example, by recommending substances for surveillance.  The GLBTS is an important, independent entity from the CMP and ChAMP and should not rely solely on those programs. 

Response (Frank Anscombe):  This idea seems to be consistent with the Great Lakes Screening Project.  The intent of the project is to propel some monitoring, beginning in the Great Lakes, that would not otherwise be conducted. 

Response (Suzanne Easton):  The CMP is a strong national program, and the CMP and GLBTS could be seen as two programs feeding each other.  That is, the GLBTS may be able to influence the research and surveillance work performed under the CMP. 

Response (Sue Brauer):  At a recent Lakewide Management Plan event, John Austin of the Brookings Institute spoke about the academic excellence in the Great Lakes region and the need for participation from all groups in the region to maintain sustainability.

6.      Comment (Greg Carreau):  What type of substances will be considered, persistent, toxic substances?  What is the end product of the workgroup, a list of substances for monitoring in the next 6 months?  The framework will take a long time to implement, if populated with the help of national programs.

Response (Lin Kaatz Chary):  The Great Lakes encompass a unique area.  This area first observed problems in wildlife related to the effect of chemicals (e.g., endocrine effects).  I have a checklist of the potential effects in animals, and if substances cause these effects, we develop substitutes for them.  Many different groups are approaching this problem and developing lists of chemicals.  I know which chemicals affect wildlife in the Great Lakes region.

Response (Ted Smith):  The GLBTS could entertain the idea of hazard as a basis for action.  As a non-regulatory program, the GLBTS could employ voluntary approaches such as green chemistry or substitution.  The GLBTS also needs to learn more about endocrine disruptor research programs.

Response (Edwina Lopes):  There are data availability issues and other concerns with the endocrine disruptor work.  The GLBTS will need to consider the scope of what it can accomplish, in a given time frame.

7.      Comment (Fe de Leon):  The Canadian Environmental Law Association has a long history of working in the Great Lakes, and we use that experience to promote an international approach to POPs.  The GLBTS should seize the opportunity to expand the Canadian CMP approach beyond persistent toxics.  The CMP has some limitations, notably:

• The categorization lacks chemicals new to Canada since 1986; and
• While there is a focus on endocrineresearch, it is limited.

The GLBTS can use various lists that are being developed and can learn from other jurisdictions; this can be raised to national programs to inform them of their limitations.

8.      Comment (Dale Phenicie):  This discussion demonstrates how difficult the process is.  For example, we cannot determine what an endocrine disruptor is.  We need to utilize other work presently being undertaken.  Also, we should consider the task elements for the GLBTS proposed by Allan Jones and Paul DeLeo.  Monitoring and surveillance researchers could be invited to speak and participate in the new GLBTS workgroups to inform discussions of potential management actions.  The process elements proposed by Allan Jones and Paul DeLeo describe how the GLBTS can accomplish its work.

9.      Comment (Tom Tseng, EC):  The GLBTS was written 12 years ago to address persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes with a mission of reducing substances.  Today’s discussion involves a larger scope, which the GLBTS may not have the capacity to address.  National programs in both countries will be ongoing for the next 10 to 20 years and will provide guidance for the GLBTS in due course.  In the interim (3-5 years), we should focus on additional reductions in emission and use of persistent toxic substances in the Great Lakes.  We should not branch out into surveillance and monitoring; the GLBTS cannot contribute significantly to national monitoring program efforts.

Response (Ted Smith):  Article II(a) of GLWQA states that “it is the policy of the Parties that the discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts be prohibited and the discharge of any or all persistent toxic substances be virtually eliminated.”  The GLWQA is not domestic law, and the GLBTS is not regulatorily driven.  It is up to us to decide the future scope of the GLBTS, and monitoring and surveillance is an essential component.  Similarly, there is no regulatory component to ChAMP.  US EPA headquarters is looking to monitoring and surveillance to help prioritize ChAMP efforts.  No other ecosystem in North America is undertaking such surveillance and monitoring as the Great Lakes.  This is a great asset for the region.

Response (Suzanne Easton):  The Canadian perspective on the relationship between the GLBTS and the CMP is that the two programs are not the same but are in alignment with one another.  The GLBTS is seen as building on national Canadian work and not re-creating those efforts (e.g., developing criteria for substances, sector work).  The two groups can inform each other.

In terms of future management options, there are opportunities for the GLBTS to move ahead of national programs, to complement national programs, or to let national programs suffice, as warranted.  Having parallel processes allows some substances to move through the GLBTS substance selection process quickly, while others may take longer.  The GLBTS substance selection process can be viewed as an ongoing, continuous identification of substances as information develops.

Wrap Up & Next Steps

Ted Smith suggested that Substance/Sector Workgroup discussions continue at the GLBTS Integration Workgroup meeting on the following day, June 4, 2008.  The co-chairs will consider stakeholder comments and present preliminary recommendations at that meeting.

Closing Comments

John Menkedick summarized the morning’s comments and noted that one remaining item for discussion was the stakeholder engagement process for the GLBTS Substance/Sector Workgroups (e.g., establishing a schedule of teleconferences).  This item was tabled for the Integration Workgroup meeting on the following day.

 

Attendees

1	Anderson	Krysta-Lee	Environment Canada
2	Anscombe	Frank	US EPA GLNPO
3	Bailey	Bob	Bailey Associates
4	Belleau	Blaine	Chiefs of Ontario
5	Brauer	Sue	US EPA Region 5
6	Brunski	Christine	Environment Canada
7	Carreau	Greg	Environment Canada
8	Chary	Lin Kaatz	NW IN Toxics Action Project & Great Lakes United
9	Cooke	Marcus	Cooke Companies International
10	De Leo	Paul	The Soap and Detergent Assoc.
11	de Leon	Fe	Canadian Environmental Law Assoc.
12	Dove	Alice	Environment Canada
13	Easton	Suzanne	Environment Canada
14	Hulan	Indrani	Environment Canada
15	Jackson	John	Great Lakes United
16	Jones	Allan	Canadian Chlorine Chemistry Council
17	Kirschner	Bruce	International Joint Commission
18	Krauel	Bob	Environment Canada
19	Kuper	George	Council of Great Lakes Industry
20	Lapczynski	Aurelia	Research Institute for Fragrance Materials
21	Lopes	Edwina	Environment Canada
22	McLeod	Ron	ALS Canada Ltd.
23	Menkedick	John	Battelle
24	Muir	Derek	Environment Canada
25	Murray	Michael	National Wildlife Federation
26	Nantel	Martin	Environment Canada
27	Phenicie	Dale	CGLI
28	Pineault	Denis	Environment Canada
29	Roewer	Jim	Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
30	Rossi	Sandy	Environment Canada
31	Sabo	Elisabeth	Environment Canada
32	Schroeder	Julie	Ontario Ministry of the Environment
33	Smith	Ted	US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
34	Strader	Evelyn	Council of Great Lakes Industry
35	Thomas	Amy	Battelle
36	Tseng	Tom	Environment Canada
37	Vaughan	Ray	New York State Attorney General’s Office
38	Waffle	Alan	Environment Canada
39	Wines	E. Marie	US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office
40	Wong	Savio	Environment Canada

 

Local Navigation

• Great Lakes Home
• Basic Information
• Interagency Task Force
• Interested Parties
• US Agencies
• States
• Canada
• Tribal Nations
• Others
• Federal Programs
• Legacy Act
• Policies & Strategies
• Monitoring & Indicators
• Ecosystems
• Toxics Reduction & Pollution Prevention
• Funding

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us