GLBTS Links

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Summary Report of Proceedings

Integration Group Meeting
February 20, 2001
Windsor, Ontario

Welcome

Jim Smith of Environment Canada opened the meeting by welcoming participants and expressing his optimism for the session. He then introduced James McKenzie of McKenzieParis as the meeting facilitator, and informed the group that James would also be working as the facilitator with the Integration Group and stakeholders for the May 2001 sessions in Toronto.

James McKenzie welcomed the participants, and reviewed the objectives for the session. They included:

to update on activities and identify relevant issues
to generate new ideas for implementing actions
to plan for the Spring GLBTS and Fall IJC Meetings

James also introduced Megan McGarrity to the group and explained her role as assisting the facilitation with recording.

Wood Stove Change Out Presentation

Anita Wong of Environment Canada gave a presentation entitled Wood Stove Change Out and Education Program in the Georgian Bay Watershed. Anita advised that the program seeks to promote the change out of existing wood stoves in order to reduce the amount of toxins emitted during burning, and to promote cleaner burning methods and techniques. The program’s key goals and messages include:

to promote better technology currently available for safer, cleaner burning
to promote general safety awareness
to promote efficiency

Anita noted that the program will be launched on February 26, 2001 in Sault Ste. Marie and will run until April 31, 2001. Hearth Products Association and local retail members have indicated support for the program, and HPA member retailers will offer rebates on new stoves. The program will also feature a series of workshops promoting awareness and proper woodstove operating techniques.

Discussion followed on the issue of dioxin emissions from wood stoves. John Jackson asked if the EPA-approved stoves increased or decreased the amount of dioxins and furans. He also wondered why levels of dioxins and furans would increase while the levels of other toxins decreased. Anita responded that Environmental Canada is looking into this question and expects to issue its conclusion in three to four weeks’ time. Anita also advised that EC’s review would be made available to those IG members interested in the findings. Gary Gulezian further commented that the EPA felt that the reductions of most toxins were significant enough to support the program. Tim Huxley asked if the reduction of toxins could be quantified in the design of the wood stove change out program. Anita replied that Environment Canada will attempt to quantify emissions, and emphasized that the program was also to promote educate awareness about cleaner, safer burning. Tom Pugh noted that results indicating increased levels of dioxins and furans in new wood stoves are surprising, and suggested that perhaps the sample size was too small since only one model was tested or that the methodology was flawed. He also suggested that the increase could be related to a change in the way carbon bonds to dioxins and furans in older stoves, or to a change in combustion temperature. He felt that the question of increased or decreased levels had not yet properly been addressed, and that further research is needed. Tom also indicated that HPAC is supportive of a change out program and the involvement of retailers to increase awareness.

Extended Producer Responsibility Workshop

Alexandra McPherson of Great Lakes United (GLU) began her presentation by inviting IG members to the Extended Producer Responsibility Workshop GLU had planned for the following day. She noted that the aim of the workshop is to promote better and cleaner product design through the conservation of resources, and the use of less or nontoxic materials. End of life product responsibilities, clean product marketing, eco-design, product labeling, and take-back programs were also subjects included in the workshop agenda.

Alexandra then gave a presentation on the GLU Clean Car Campaign, and described the organization's concern with the current and continued use of mercury in cars. She also described GLU’s concern regarding:

the size of the North American auto fleet and the amount of mercury contained within this fleet
the continued use of mercury in anti-lock breaking systems, and the introduction of mercury-containing parts in headlamps, navigational displays, and family entertainment units
the lack of historical data about the use of mercury in automobiles
the combustion of mercury in electric arc furnaces

Alexandra then noted that GLU advocates the following:

an immediate phase-out of mercury switches
producer responsibility for mercury switch removal
eventual phase-out of all uses of mercury in automobiles
full disclosure of the historical use of mercury in automobiles
that auto manufacturers fund the removal and disposal of mercury from automobiles

Alexandra concluded her presentation by providing a website for further information (www.cleancarcampaign.org ) and invited IG members to contact her with questions at (716) 886-0412.

Gary Allie asked about the study presented, specifically the methodology used to collect data on emissions from electric arc furnaces. He expressed a view that the presented findings were of a magnitude 10 times higher than EPA data with which he was familiar. Alexandra advised that the numbers were rough estimates, and that EPA data with which she was familiar gave a range of mercury emissions within which the presented finding fell. Gary Allie also expressed concern about generalizing stack test results, and noted specifically that results should not be generalized to integrated steel mills. Tom Barnett suggested that GLU should also look at other industries such as foundries. Alexandra stated that GLU has looked into other industries and has called for further studies. Joe Stepun mentioned that he knows that North Star Steel is also looking into mercury and will provide a contact to Alexandra. Joe also inquired about the process and costs of GLU’s auto fleet mercury change out programs. Alexandra expressed a view that mercury switches, each containing 1 gram of mercury, were removable at a cost $0.38 each. She further noted that it is not possible to change out ABS breaking system components.

Mercury Switches in Cars

Greg Dana of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) gave a presentation entitled An Auto Industry Update, which described the use of mercury-containing products and the Alliance’s support of end-of-life removal of those products. Greg identified the following uses of mercury in automobile manufacture:

in convenience light switches which have a phase out date of 2004
in ABS switches which also have a phase out date of 2004

He also identified the emerging use of mercury in automobile manufacture:

in High Intensity Discharge Headlights (0.5 mg of mercury)
in Back-lit dashboards (2 mg of mercury)

Greg advised that the AAM believes mercury should be removed at the end of an automobile’s life. The AAM does not believe that additional labels warning about mercury are useful. The AAM would like to see nationally consistent legislative requirements for labeling and the use of mercury as automobiles are often traded across jurisdictional boundaries. Greg mentioned several jurisdictions (Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Vermont) in the process of introducing labeling bills. The AAM also supports a uniform waste law, but is not in favor of classifying mercury switches as hazardous waste since it believes mercury is well encapsulated in switches. The AAM has created and provided over 400 auto dismantlers with a brochure on mercury removal and disposal. Greg also expressed a view that the electric arc furnace release estimates cited in the previous presentation were overstated.

Following the presentation, Sandro Leonardelli asked about the following three matters: 1) could auto dismantlers ensure that they were providing mercury-free scrap?; 2) could the steel industry could be sure it is receiving mercury-free scrap?; and, 3) can the steel industry request mercury-free scrap? Greg responded that the industry does not currently use or request mercury-free steel. Rita Cestaric asked if a uniform waste law would affect mercury switches. Greg thought that it would. Margaret Wooster inquired about initiatives for the ultimate disposal of mercury. Greg did not know where it was disposed of. Charles Griffith inquired about setting up programs with appropriate capture rates for small and medium sized businesses. For example, he suggested a goal of a 90% capture rate. Charles also expressed the view that that responsibility should not rest solely with state jurisdictions. Greg agreed on the goal of working with small and medium sized businesses and further expressed a view that states should work with recyclers to ensure that all required components are removed from automobiles at the end-of-life period. Anita Wong inquired about the necessity of new uses of mercury in vehicles. Greg pointed out that they were primarily found in luxury vehicles.

Burn Barrel Strategy

Sandro Leonardelli of Environment Canada, former lead of the Burn Barrel subgroup, gave a presentation entitled Reducing Barrel Burning in the Great Lakes Basin. This presentation introduced a program designed to raise awareness within the GLBTS of the barrel burning reduction strategy, and to seek insights and suggestions for the strategy as well as to identify opportunities for partnering and funding. Sandro reported that:

barrel burning contributes approximately 25% of annual dioxin/furan releases (EPA, 1995 dioxin re-assessment)
burning is especially prevalent in rural areas
burning waste in rural agricultural areas may contribute a disproportionate amount of dioxins and furans to food, a primary pathway to human uptake of dioxins and furans
other pollutants such as VOC’s (e.g. benzene), fine particulate matter (PM10), PAH’s (i.e. benzo(a) pyrene) and some heavy metals are released during burning

Sandro also noted the following goals of the burn barrel sub-group:

to achieve a reduction in dioxin and furan emissions by eliminating barrel burning in the Great Lakes basin
to share reduction strategies and tools with jurisdictions outside the basin (to reduce long-range transport)

Sandro pointed out that there is currently no coordinated action to address barrel burning and that the GLBTS is the appropriate forum for undertaking a basin-wide campaign. He further noted that the sub-group is working to change individual’s behaviors through:

education
infrastructure
regulations/enforcement

Sandro concluded his presentation by asking interested members of the IG to assist, and noted that a final reduction strategy and implementation plan will be provided at the May IG meeting. Funding commitments will be sought at that time.

Patty O’Donnell noted that in many areas of Michigan rural residents were not willing to discontinue burning because waste disposal costs were too high. John Jackson suggested that it is very important to address local dumpsite burning at the provincial and state levels. He also made a point that currently in Ontario the regulation of this matter lies with municipalities and that there is a great amount of variation between municipalities.

Joe Stepun noted that open barrel burning was the second largest source of dioxin and furan releases and therefore requires action. He then suggested that any public message should not be alarmist. Tom Barnett informed the group that Indiana has banned local burning of waste. Sandro added that Illinois had done so as well, but is not enforcing its ban. Molly Chidsey advised of the chlorine in plastics, which are also burned. She further expressed an interest in assisting with the development of educational programs, and also questioned the method of funding burn barrel programs. Dale Phenicie advised that the burn barrel sub-group is developing a strategy document that will be presented to the dioxins and furans group.

Steel Industry Activities

David Ailor of The American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute gave a presentation entitled The US Coke Industry’s efforts to reduce releases of PBTS into the Great Lakes Basin. He provided an overview of the U.S. Coke industry including:

a description of the coke production process
a description of the differences between “by-product recovery” processes and “nonrecovery” processes
a description of type and location operating US coke plants
an overview of the major and minor components of raw coke oven gases, and emissions of gases of concern to the GLBTS during coke production including B(a)P and PAHs.

David also described the production of coke in China and the increasing quantities imported to the US, and expressed some interest in seeing environmental regulation of this industry. David raised concern over the range of competing emission estimates from coke plants. He pointed out that comments from the Coke Oven Environmental Task Force (COETF) released on November 7th, 2000 explained that the GLBTS July 13th, 2000 draft report entitled Benzo(a) Pyrene and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Sources, Regulations and Programs for the Ontario Great Lakes Basin overestimate actual emissions of B(a)P and PAH from coke production. He concluded by expressing a continued commitment of US Coke producers, via the COETF, to the GLBTS.

Margaret Wooster raised concern about two coke plants. She wondered if coke imports are replacing domestic coke and if coke producers are stockpiling domestic coke. David offered to provide contacts to Margaret so that she could inquire about specific plants. Andy Buchsbaum wished to know if mercury was emitted from coke plants. David stated that the industry had not studied mercury emissions. Anita Wong advised that Environment Canada is looking at the pathways of coal and coke use.

Gary Allie inquired about the development of any new technologies or production methods. David replied that there are new closed system production methods which eliminate by-products. David also noted that there are many industries (i.e., tar) that use coke by-products. Gary Allie further inquired about steel production with less or no coke. Tim Huxley explained that glass furnaces currently cannot produce enough volume of material for steel production.

Tim Huxley of North American Steel then gave a presentation entitled BNTS Toxics of Interest in the Steel Sector. He presented an overview of substances of concern to the GLBTS, where they are found in the steel sector, and a description of the steel sectors knowledge about releases to air, land and water. He also commented on existing reporting mechanisms (from both the US and Canada) and existing barriers to the reduction of:

Mercury from coal, equipment, scrap, and taconite processing
Dioxins and furans from electric arc furnaces
HCB from iron sintering
B(a)P from coke making
PCB’s from equipment

Tim described the steel sector ongoing participation with the following examples:

work through the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI). (Tim referred the ISRI website at http://www.isri.org//AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home1 ).
studies of taconite processing mercury emissions (in Minnesota)
with Dofasco and Stelco work on mercury emissions with Environment Canada
through steel sector strategic options process (SOP) and SCA
with the CCME-sponsored CWS multi-stakeholder advisory groups (MAG) process
through information sharing with interlocking association membership
voluntary reporting of mercury recycling and waste to the ARET program
voluntary NPRI report 2000 emission reporting
USA TRI report beginning in 2000 of dioxin and furan compounds and HCB
CWS sector standards targeted for Spring 2001
through environmental best practices (EBOM) for coke making
removal of PCB equipment by 2010

Tim concluded by emphasizing the steel sector’s continued efforts to engage in activities to minimize toxics release.

John Jackson raised concern about the need to address contaminated sediments adjacent to steel sector industries and asked about the industry’s commitment vis-à-vis funding and participation to sediment remediation and clean up programs. Tim responded that the steel sector was committed to participation but not to funding. Stephane Gingras expressed a view that SOP processes are not up to date and that recommendations have been given to Ministers but no decisions have been made. Andy Buchsbaum expressed a concern about the taconite emissions in Minnesota and emphasized that they were of concern to the Lake Superior LAMP as most steel industries were located in the north of the state. Gary Gulezian asked IG members for their views on the question of approaches taken by the GLBTS (i.e., by substance or by sector). Tim responded that this is an opportunity for further explorations. Gary further wondered, given the global nature of coal and steel production, if there might be an opportunity to create synergies with the steel industry as advisors on POPs. George Kuper cautioned that care should be exercised if inviting the steel sector to advise on POPs. Tim Brown inquired about the disposal of PCB containing equipment. Tim replied that they are primarily using the Swan Hills facility.

Stakeholder and Government Activity Updates

Rita Cestaric of the EPA announced the Progress Report for 2000 is now available and will soon be on available on the website. She noted that a news release will also be sent out to announce the availability of the Report on the website.

Greg Hammond of Environment Canada announced that a draft test of the POPs protocol was successfully completed in December 2000. In May 2001, the protocol will be available for formal adoption. Greg referred participants to www.chem.unep.ch/pops for more information on POPs.

Greg Hammond also noted that at the 21st session of the UNEP Governing Council held in February 2001 an announcement was made that the UNEP will undertake a global study on the health and environmental impacts of mercury. Greg commented that it is anticipated the study will also assess the cost-effectiveness of mercury anti-pollution measures and technologies. This assessment will be presented to the Governing Council in 2003. Greg referred to a press release and noted that is accessible at http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=192&ArticleID=2770 . He further noted that a copy of the draft decisions submitted by the Working Group on Chemicals (including the Hg decision) is available at: http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb1616e.pdf

Jim Smith of Environment Canada confirmed a February 19th, 2001 News Release from the Government of Canada announcing an investment of $120.2 million in new regulatory and other measures to accelerate action on clean air. The News Release notes that additional information is available by contacting Johanne Beaulieu, press secretary, Office of the Prime Minister at (819) 953-2101, or through the website at http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2001/010219_n_e.htm

John Jackson of GLU raised a concern about pesticide reporting in the February 20th, 2001 Progress Report. He expressed the view that the reporting of the conclusion of the Canadian challenge (see p.22 of the Report) should be changed to be consistent with the US reporting (also on p.22) that recognizes the principle of the challenge as having been met.

Molly Chidsey of National Wildlife Federation gave an update on the NWF’s Mercury Free Medicine Campaign. Forty-six new hospitals in Michigan have joined to bring the nation-wide total to over 660 facilities. Molly noted that Patty O’Donnell of the Grand Traverse Band of the Ottawa and Chippewa was very helpful in encouraging a large healthcare system in Michigan to join.

Transition into New Ideas

Jim Smith and Gary Gulezian introduced the Transition Into New Ideas Session on the agenda. Jim encouraged the group to be creative in suggesting ideas and advised that all suggestions would be considered in the course of planning future steps for the Strategy. In turn, Gary Galezian encouraged the group to collaborate and generate momentum for the Strategy. Jim and Gary both advised that Environment Canada and EPA would consider the group’s suggestions and report on the assessment of the suggestions to IG members prior to the May meeting.

James McKenzie then began the facilitation of the session by reviewing the current status of the strategy (i.e., completion of Step 3 Reports), and posing to the group the following question:

What might we do to move the Strategy (GLBTS) forward?

In reflecting on this question to guide their thinking, James encouraged the group to propose ideas without concern for scrutiny. In that regard, he advised the group that this was an idea-generating activity and that critical commentary on suggestions would be discouraged. He then reiterated Jim Smith’s comment that all suggestions would be given full consideration in due course.

Specific suggestions are noted below; however, the following general themes emerged from the brainstorming session as matters the participants felt were deserving of immediate attention:

stakeholder participation, expectations, and responsibilities
awareness, exposure and education of/about the Strategy
focus on substance and/or sector
revisit the principles guiding the Strategy
quantification and measurement
scale (i.e., more than pilots)
need to start getting specific

The following specific participant comments were recorded during the session:

increase public awareness via communications strategy
more formalized process/body to address cleaner production methods and extended producer responsibility
what kind of strategic approach could be taken to address sectors?
identifying gaps between substances and sectors
meaningful engagement of all stakeholders
advance Step 3 actions
pragmatically moving ahead – Step 3 approach
working with substance groups to identify sector priorities
continue decision tree process
use results to identify aggregate results with sectors
how can we engage more environmental groups in substance workgroups?
emphasis on clean production
take a sectoral approach
need to get the message straight (i.e., mercury retirement)
tie to education
more pilots
coordinate, but not necessarily formally (i.e., small efforts)
more collaborative approach needed
expand pilots (i.e., woodstove)
issue challenge letters
heighten public awareness
workgroups report roadblocks to Integration Group
address measurements (i.e., quantification and qualification of work results and participation)
use the concepts like product stewardship and other guiding principles
examine and weigh positives and negatives between substance and sector approaches
framework for reduction on sector by sector basis – based on negotiated agreements and quantities
involve participants external to strategy when addressing “roll-outs”
identify dates and targets for virtual elimination
explore how Strategy can add value to campaigns already underway
set and discuss stakeholder participation and expectations in the Strategy (i.e., define)
how does communication between Strategy participants and their constituencies occur?
address external sources of contaminants in the Great Lakes basin
consider changes in the Strategy processes

Sediment Remediation Workshop

Griff Sherbin of Environment Canada provided an overview of the workshop on sediment treatment technologies to be held April 24th/25th, 2001 at the Holiday Inn North Campus in Ann Arbor. The workshop is entitled Treating Great Lakes Contaminated Sediments. Highlights of the workshop include:

presentation on treatment technologies
bioremediation case studies and approaches taken
panel discussion on overcoming barriers to remediation

Sediment Challenge Report

Griff Sherbin of Environment Canada also reported on the Sediment Challenge. He noted that:

USA and Canada will have advanced or have completed the remediation of priority sites in the basin by 2006
a format, using 1997 as a baseline, has been developed to track sediment remediation
reports will attempt to track volumes and mass of GLBTS chemicals removed
a report covering 1997 – 1999 was prepared for November 16th, 2000 GLBTS Progress Report

Dale Phenicie of CGLI asked if the workshop would address natural attenuation. Griff pointed out that the workshop is focused on treatment and technologies available. Griff also noted that the workshop will not address financing. The workshop can accommodate 125 participants.

May IG Meeting and Stakeholder Forum

James McKenzie facilitated a suggestion of themes, topics, format and structure for GLBTS meetings on May 17th/18th, 2001 in Toronto. Several suggestions were made for the stakeholder plenary:

workgroup chairs report progress on goals and timetables
steel sector presentation be given again (with some reformatting) because it was helpful in identifying where emissions sources are and tie into EPR
highlight role of ENGOs; promote additional ENGO involvement
workgroup reporting on status, activities, and timelines; workgroup chairs address barriers at Integration Group session following day
more than 5 minutes for workgroup leader reporting at Integration Group session
restrict task group agendas re reporting out to plenary; discuss with workgroup leaders
connect plenary to Integration Group
focus on activities
how are we doing? comment
less process; more results
status and plans for down the road
explore how substances intersect with sectors; explore limitation of sectoral approach
include frank discussion of: what does it take to get parties to engage? demystify; what did it take?; what does it take?
how do we get industries and municipalities (and U.S. equivalent) involved
follow-up on strategic thinking and direction ideas from February 20th, 2001 Integration Group meeting
need a proposal to respond to?
work on publicizing over next month
working sessions redirection; transitions
discuss health and environmental impacts honestly
workgroup leaders should discuss what it will take to move the process forward; would like to see a list of doable real dates and activities, not a laundry list of expectations that cannot be fulfilled

Several suggestions were also made for the Integration Group meeting:

strategic planning and thinking about where we go next including scale and direction
EC and EPA chairs and staff will look at taking ideas from today (i.e., February 20th, 2001), work on process and ideas, and turn it into a plenary
have identified some directions
need to leave space for discussion on areas where there are issues that participants need help with (i.e., what to do, where to go concerning a specific idea raised)

IJC Great Lakes Water Quality Public Forum

James asked the group for its ideas on the role, if any, the Strategy might play at the International Joint Commission Great Lakes Water Quality Forum scheduled for Montreal on September 14th/15th, 2001. Ideas raised include:

showcase the GLBTS
connect toxic reduction efforts at a different scale with those outside basin
use the forum to create a bigger picture and a bigger scale

James invited IG members to pass along comments to Alan Waffle (alan.waffle@ec.gc.ca) and Rita Cestaric (cestaric.rita@epamail.epa.gov) by e-mail.

Long Range Transport

Alan Waffle of Environment Canada announced that the Step 1 literature review of The Long Range Transport of Persistent Toxic Substances to the Great Lakes: Review and Assessment of Recent Literature has been completed. Alan further noted that Environment Canada will host a workshop in the greater Toronto area on October 2nd/3rd 2001 that will feature Dr. Keith Pucket and his US counterpart . The workshop will bring together experts (by invitation) to help characterize data gaps, solicit pertinent information, and recommend options for a path forward.

Conclusion of Meeting

Jim Smith of Environment Canada thanked IG members for their hard work throughout the day. He gave special thanks to Alan Waffle and Rita Cestaric for their contributions in planning and giving effect to a productive meeting. James McKenzie again thanked participants for their efforts and hard work.

Attendees

Greg Dana
Alliance of Auto Manufacturers

Joe Stearns
Chlorine Chemistry Council

Dale Phenicie
CGLI

George Kuper
CGLI

John Jackson
GLU

Stephane Gingras
GLU

Gary Allie
Ispat Inland Inc.

Tom Barnett
Ispat Inland Inc.

Marty Bratzel
IJC (Windor)

Tania DelMatto
C2P2

Marrianne Woods
Environment Canada

John Menkedick
Battelle

Joe Stepun
WLSSD

Molly Chidsey
National Wildlife Federation

Gary Gulezian
USEPA

Charles Griffith
Ecology Center, Ann Arbour

Alan Waffle
Environment Canada

Andy Buchsbaum
National Wildlife Federation

Patty O’Donnell
Grand Traverse Band of the Ottawa and Chippewa

James McKenzie
McKenzieParis

Megan McGarrity
McKenzieParis

Griff Sherbin
Contractor with Environment Canada

Greg Hammond
Environment Canada

Laura Nazef
USEPA

Lori Elliot
hompson Gow and Associates

Trent Gow
Thompson Gow and Associates

Alexandra McPherson
GLU

Tom Pugh
Hearth Product Association

Jack Goldman
Hearth Products Association

David Ailor
ACCCI

Margaret Wooster
GLU

Dan Hopkins
EPA

Anita Wong
Environment Canada

Susan Nameth
Environment Canada

Rita Cestaric
USEPA

Tim Brown
Delta Institute

Kelly Burch
PA DEP Office of the Great Lakes

Jim Smith, Environment Canada

Karen Yang, Environment Canada

Sandro Leonardelli
Environment Canada

Tim Huxley
North American Steel