Jump to main content.

GLBTS Links

Back to Index
exit EPA (About PDF)

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholders Forum - Windsor, Ontario

May 30, 2002
Integration Group Meeting
Summary Report of the Proceedings
Windsor, Ontario

Introduction 

Danny Epstein, Regional Director of Environmental Protection Branch – Ontario Region , welcomed all the participants to the meeting. He acknowledged the successful Stakeholder Forum and noted that this meeting would provide opportunities to review success, look ahead to challenges for the next five years, and look at how to meet targets for 2006.

Gary Gulezian, Director of the Great Lakes National Programs Office of USEPA also welcomed participants and thanked them for attending. He too noted the opportunity at this meeting to address the direction of the Strategy.

James McKenzie, the meeting’s facilitator, then invited participants to introduce themselves and briefly report any organizational updates they wish to share. 

Government/Stakeholder Activity Updates:

Margaret Wooster commented on the Hg switch out program with the automobile industry, noting the implementation of 10 switch out programs with fleet owners.

Andy Buchsbaum noted water management reform initiatives on which many Great Lakes States are working, and a standard under discussion regarding water withdrawals.

Tom Barnett reported on a voluntary program of equipment identification and removal that is anticipated to be successful in removing Hg annually thorough to 2008.

Vicki Thomas brought attention to the recently released Great Lakes Report 2001, and noted that it addresses toxic sediment as an important goal. The Report also includes a section on the Strategy.

Danny announced that CBC media requested permission to audio record the presentations of Jim Maguire and Mike DeVito, and asked if anyone from the group had any issue with it doing so. Gary Gulezian advised that meetings associated with the Strategy were deemed public meetings. George Kuper expressed the view that video and audio recording were inconsistent with the exploratory and dialogic nature of the Integration Group meetings. It was determined that the media would be asked to not record the session. 

Emerging Chemicals of Concern in the Great Lakes Basin

Jim Maguire, of the National Water Research Institute, provided an informational presentation on the emerging chemicals of concern in the Great Lakes Basin.  Below is a summary: 

Brominated Fire Retardants – PBDEs
Jim noted that PBDEs in general show low acute and chronic toxicity. Toxicity tends to decrease as the degree of bromination increases. The toxicological endpoints likely to be of greatest concern for low PBDEs concentrations in the environment are thyroid hormone disruption, neuro-developmental effects, and cancer. Jim commented that additional Canadian data (on toxicity, persistence, distribution, etc) are required in preparation for a PSL assessment. He noted that trout in Lake Ontario showed a 300-times increase in PBDEs between 1978-1998.  The main concern with PBDEs, especially penta-BDE in North America, is their continued use in consumer products. He further noted that penta-BDEs have been banned in Europe, however   there is uncertainty associated with PBDE sources in the Canadian environment and a need for LCA to track PBDE-containing wastes. 

Perfluorinated Organic Acids (POA)
Jim noted that trifluroacetic acid (TFA) and chlorodifluoroacetic acid (CIDFA) have been traced in urban air, with significant amounts in oceans. Sources have not been identified, although Teflon and perfluoroethers are suspected. He further noted that these compounds are persistent but not very toxic as compared to TCA (which is more toxic but not very persistent). Jim commented that other POAs, such as perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perflourooctanoic acid (PFOA), have been found in Arctic biota such as polar bears and fish-eating birds. He mentioned that these compounds are persistent because of the great stability of the perfluoro group, and that some are also bioaccumulative. Jim advised that more information on LCA use and distribution is required. 

Medium Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (MCCPs)
Jim noted that MCCPs (C14-C17) have been predicted to be persistent and bioaccumulative. These compounds are used as flame retardants in PVC products and have been found in sediment downstream from Cornwall. Accumulation patterns in the food web are being examined. Jim noted that more information on use, environmental distribution, and exposure is required. 

Polychlorinated Naphthalenes (PCNs)
Jim commented that PCNs were first manufactured for industrial purposes from the early 1900s until 1977 in the US. He noted that these compounds are of concern because several congeners elicit dioxin-type responses similar to coplanar PCBs.  PCNs have shown a continuing presence in the Arctic, and their pattern suggests a possible combustion source, which is evident from air samples from the Toronto area of the Great Lakes. Jim noted that PCN sources and transport routes are not very well defined. 

Silicones
Jim noted that the synthetic silicones are large-volume chemicals used as or in antifoamers, lubricants, dielectric fluids, solvents, hydraulic acids, cosmetics, detergents, hair care and skin products, and so on. He advised that high MW polydimethyl siloxanes (PDMS) and polyethermethyl siloxanes (PEMS) have low acute toxicity in soil and water; however, by contrast, low MW volatile methylsiloxanes (VMS) compounds are more toxic to aquatic organisms and therefore of particular concern. VMSs also have a capability to undergo long-range transport and be regionally and globally distributed due to their long oxidation lifetimes. These compounds have also been found in Ontario municipal wastewater effluents (MWWE).

To conclude his remarks, Jim highlighted other potential chemicals or issues of concern. He mentioned that some pharmaceuticals, such as salicylic acid and ibuprofen have been found in STP effluent in Burlington and Toronto. Common EDSs, such as estrogen and estradiol, have also been discovered in the environment. Other chemicals or issues of concern include musks, nitro compounds, hydroxy-PCBs, pigments and dyes, chiral pesticides, and replacement antifoulants for tributyltin (TBT). Jim also noted that sources or factors such as MWWE, urban runoff, industrial point source discharges, landfills, and waste disposal may be threats by themselves or may have a bearing on chemical use patterns.

Questions
Alan Jones commented about the categorization and screening process of DSL in Canada which brings forward substances requiring examination. He then inquired how the NWRI relates to this program. Jim explained that a system is in place that deals with screening chemicals of concern, but that the system does need to be refined.

Gary Gulezian inquired about the classes of chemicals that are of greatest concern with respect to exposure and health effects. Jim explained that there are many chemicals to be concerned about, but his personal concern is on components of auto exhaust which affect the urban air quality.

Margaret inquired about the inverse relationship between nutrients and contaminants that can affect bioavailabilty. Jim responded by noting that nutrient contamination is akin to moving a chemical from one medium to another. For example, if algae was injected it would likely absorb lipophillic contaminants. 

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs): State of the Science

Michael DeVito, from the Office of Research and Development, USEPA, provided an overview on PBDEs and their current state of science. Mike noted that PBDEs are a major class of brominated flame retardants that are produced commercially as mixtures for industrial use. He explained several uses of  PBDEs  in industry: deca-BDEs (DBDE) used as polymers and electronic equipments, Octa-BDEs (OBDE) used as polymers in office equipment, and Penta-BDEs (PeBDE) used in textiles, especially the polyeurethane foams. Mike remarked that the commercial formulations of penta-BDE also contain tetra-BDE (TeBDE), and that these lower congeners (PeBDE and TeBDE) are of particular concern as they are more bioaccumulative and persistent than the higher congeners. Europe has passed a ban on PeBDE. Mike commented that the main sources of PBDE releases into the environment include polymer processing, formulating textiles, volatilization and leaching during use, and particulate losses over use/disposal.

Mike noted how DBDE is less prevalent in air and biota than TeBDE and PeBDE (or the lower congeners). He further noted that PeBDE is more toxic to invertebrates than OBDE and DBDE because DBDE is poorly absorbed and rapidly eliminated. PBDEs (tetra and penta) have also caused neurotoxic effects on mice resulting in permanent functional changes in the brain. Mike noted that studies have indicated that some commercial mixtures of PBDE exhibit AhR effects (or dioxin-like effects) and that the OH-PBDE (hydroxilated) metabolites bind to transthyretin disrupting the thyroid hormone balance.

Mike reported on the pattern of different PBDE congeners in human samples. In US and Europe samples, TePBDE levels were found to be higher than PeBDE levels. Japanese samples showed higher peBDE levels than tePBDE. Mike further noted that PBDE and PCB levels are not correlated.  PCB levels are greater than PBDE levels.

Mike commented on PBDE concentrations in breast milk from North America and Europe. He noted a slight increase in PBDE from Swedish samples between 1990-2000, while US and Canadian samples showed highly elevated levels of PBDE in milk samples from 1990–2000. Mike suggested a possible link between the PBDE levels in Swedish samples and the ban on use of PeBDE in Sweden.

Looking ahead, Mike noted that additional toxicological data and systematic monitoring systems are required to study the PBDE impacts on human health and the environment. He advised of a need to focus on congeners present in humans and wildlife and not on the commercial products that are altered in the environment. Mike noted that further research needs to also include examining the PBDE half-life in the environment and end-of life cycle, i.e., release, and breakdown pathways. 

Questions
Vicki Thomas asked whether there were any product substitutes for these substances, (e.g. penta). Marsha Hardy advised that brominated flame retardants are used in appliances and with highly flammable material in combination in electricity. Mike also expressed concern regarding the possible breakdown of deca into penta.

Sandro Leonardelli inquired about the dioxin-like behavior of commercial mixtures, and asked if a presence of dioxins could be assumed? Mike noted that mixtures have been analyzed for dioxins, and that a dioxin-like effect is present.

Andy Buchsbaum then asked for a clarification, to which Mike noted the inducement of a marker-like enzyme the same as with dioxins. Andy then asked if that meant dioxin-like health effects. Mike noted that testing in rats revealed a 40% decrease in thyroid hormones, but penta mixtures produced an 85% decrease in thyroid levels 

Pollution Prevention and the Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy 

Ian Orchard, of Environment Canada, gave a presentation entitled The Contribution of SMEs to Toxic Loadings. Ian explained that Environment Canada had contracted OCETA to estimate the contribution of SMEs to toxic loadings. OCETA conducted research to test the hypothesis that up to 80% of Ontario’s industrial sources have less than 500 employees at the facility level, and that up to 80% of pollutants and wastes come from SME sources. Ian noted that this research drew on the 2000 NPRI data, and only the Ontario records were used to narrow the scope of the data. Ian described that 133 companies, with a combined total of 419 facilities, were chosen and classified by a number of employees and further grouped according to their Standard Industry Code (SIC). He further described that the total loadings (in tonnes) were calculated for each sector as a whole and for SMEs alone. A profile was constructed for each sector based on the amount of each chemical the SMEs released into the environment.

The results of the study are as follows:

Ian presented charts illustrating the distribution of predominant pollutants released by SMEs in the Furniture and Fixture, Plastic Products, and Chemical and Chemical Products industries. For example, xylene, methyl ethyl ketone, methanol, styrene, and toluene were predominant pollutants released by SMEs in the Furniture and Fixture Industry. Ian described that the analysis of the data confirmed the hypothesis that 80% of the industrial sources (in Ontario) have fewer than 500 employees at the facility level. He further noted that the percentage of SME facilities would be larger if it were not for the inclusion of the Transportation Equipment Industries sector (including the Big 3 automakers) which skewed the results. He described that excluding this sector would raise the percentage of SMEs reporting to NPRI in Ontario to 90%. He also noted that the proportions of pollutants from SMEs to total loadings were low in Transportation Equipment, Paper and Allied Products, and Machinery Industry. If these three sectors were netted out of the calculation of the percentage of pollutants coming from SMEs, the new percentage would be 81%.

Ian reviewed the following preliminary conclusions that have resulted from OCETA’s research:

In conclusion, Ian described that this program needs to address toxics broadly, including Binational and CEPA toxics, hazardous wastes, and smog precursors. He also noted that data on binational toxics from SME sources in particular are limited. He suggested that SMEs should be analyzed to account for variability in their waste streams, corporate culture, and behavior both, between and within sectors.

Questions
Alan Jones asked about the use of the 500-employee number to define SMEs. He commented on the variability in firms that fall under this classification, (e.g. there might be firms of this size with leading edge systems, but also firms of the same size that lack expertise). Ian explained that they have taken this into account, and that the 500-employee number is a more bureaucratic number that was chosen under the Canada Environmental Industry Initiative. However, they are looking into redefining the number.

Margaret questioned why these companies tend to focus only one substance.  Ian answered that these companies have smaller operations, some even family-owned, and thus tend to focus on one substance at a time, often fulfilling the regulatory requirements.

Sandro asked if the study considered off site transfer to waste water. Ian explained that they looked at NPRI but did not get a chance to carry on further research due to limited financial resources.

Gary inquired if the study carried out a subset of the GLBTS substances to examine how SMEs are responsible for these substances. Ian explained that they included GLBTS substances, but the main focus was on NPRI. He indicated that a preliminary report looking at this subset has been prepared, although no general conclusions have been drawn. Ian suggested that perhaps his group along with MOE could come back to share this information in future Integration Group meetings.

Following Ian’s presentation, James announced that several participants had asked if additional time could be made available to further discuss the presentations of Jim Maguire and Mike DeVito. The agenda was revised to allow for such.

Peter Boyer inquired about the level of concern associated with combustion and the aquatic environment, noting the role of sewers in urban areas. Mike advised that brominated dibenzylfurans (dibenzofurans??) will be produced when bromides are present in a fire, and that this issue has been generally ignored.

Andy commented on the suspected levels of PBDE in breast milk in US, noting the dioxin-like effects in the mixture, but not in individual congeners.

Andy further inquired about certain kinds of silicon products with certain properties that might distinguish them as a class, and asked if there was a rule across the chemical board. Jim responded than when chemicals are screened, certain criteria and properties warrant immediate classification.

Addressing Gary and Danny, Andy encouraged a presentation on criteria, noting that without such, emergent chemical issues will be too difficult to manage and address. Danny pointed to the system in place in Canada under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for looking at new substances. He further noted that the intent of  this meeting was not to look at any one substance specifically, but to see if there were  substances that may be generally considered. Danny also expressed the view that a decision tree process for looking at other substances was necessary. Gary echoed that view.

George expressed the view that the Strategy is not structured to deal with the substances addressed at this meeting.

Margaret subsequently expressed that the Strategy includes language for elevating new chemicals to the List.

Sandro commented on the role of the NWRI and how it is not a body for undertaking risk assessment.

Reflections on the Current State and Future Directions of the Strategy

Given the milestone of the Strategy’s fifth anniversary, it was considered appropriate to reflect on the Challenges established at the outset of the initiative and address both progress and work remaining. To facilitate such reflection and dialogue, the following four questions were posed to participants:

  1. Where the challenge goals have been met, what, if any, additional opportunities exist that can take us further down the road toward Virtual Elimination?
  2. Where challenge goals have not been met, what work remains to be done?
  3. Where challenge goal dates have lapsed, how should the Strategy reflect this?
  4. What advice might you suggest for establishing a process for addressing the issue raised in the foregoing extracts from the Strategy? What would such an approach look like or include?
Margaret Wooster commented that the focus of the Strategy since its inception has been on reduction and not pollution prevention. She noted examples concerning Dioxins/Furans and PCBs to emphasize this point. It would be appropriate, she noted, to place the focus of the Strategy on pollution prevention.

Vicki Thomas noted that a commitment was given to also work on Level II substances, and expressed that the Strategy should begin moving its focus towards that List. Gary Gulezian noted that the process for elevating Level II substances to the Level I list is the same process as adding new chemicals or substances.

Alan Jones advised that a strong consensus is required on a process for moving the Strategy forward over the next five years.

Danny Epstein commented that care must be exercised when discussing the Strategy and other regulatory processes, and  that such processes do not necessarily directly link to the Strategy. He noted a strong need to maintain the positive working relationships established through the Strategy, and the ongoing need to recognize the Strategy’s role and relationship with the IJC, LaMPs, and the GLWQA.

Andy Buchsbaum expressed that what was started must be finished before moving on to other projects or initiatives within the Strategy. He noted that the PCB reservoir and sediment clean up challenge would likely not be achieved by 2006. He also noted that some of the Challenge goals are not sufficient, pointing to the Hg challenge goal and noting that it was not designed to take the Great Lakes to a status where fish can be eaten and the ecosystem restored. It was his view that several of the Challenge goals were the result of political compromise. Credibility of the process is dependent on finishing what was started.

Vicki Thomas concurred with the gist of Andy’s remarks, and noted that the Strategy should not simply expire in 2006.

Margaret Wooster commented  that the role of the Strategy is grounded in the GLWQA and that it established principles that should be adhered to. She also expressed a view that the Strategy has not really focused much attention or effort ‘outside of the box.’

Susan Nameth noted that Ian Orchard’s presentation pointed to a number of sources that have not been addressed, and that doing so would provide an opportunity to look at other approaches. Sh  also encouraged the Strategy to consider international and out-of-Basin occurrences.

Danny Epstein expressed his appreciation for many of the points raised.

Picking up on Margaret’s comment on the need for innovative thinking, Andy Buchsbaum noted that much could be done and pointed to reduced insurance rates for well-run SMEs as an example.

With respect to Question 1, 2, and 3, George Kuper noted their importance and remarked that the Substance-specific Workgroups should provide input. With regard to the fourth question, George referred to a draft document his organization circulated. He emphasized that the document not be perceived as a CGLI initiative, but rather that this document serve as a mechanism for the group to engage in dialogue about a possible approach. As such, he recommended that (1) the Workgroups provide comment and answers to questions 1, 2, and 3, and that a process be established for adding and removing substances for/from consideration.

With respect to goals and challenges, George remarked that effective managers were ones who established goals that required effort and stretch and which could not be easily “wiggled out of.”

Tom Barnet noted that industry responds best to specific goals and targets.

Alan Jones expressed the need to focus on SMEs and bringing them into the parameters of the Strategy.

Gary Gulezian raised  caution toward an assumption that the Strategy would be in place beyond 2006.

Margaret Wooster added to Tom Barnett’s comment about specific goals and targets such that, the Strategy needs to be more specific about its goals, particularly if some other iteration of the Strategy is to exist beyond 2006.

Mike DeVito encouraged an approach that would match goals with health based outcomes, particularly those that measure health related risks. In commenting on virtual elimination, he noted that practicality must guide effort.

Gary Gulezuian noted that it would be helpful to understand what approaches other jurisdictions and initiatives employ to add or remove substances from consideration. George Kuper added that  the Integration Group need not reinvent the wheel with respect to an appropriate approach for the Great Lakes.

James summarized the discussion by noting that a broad consensus emerged with respect to (1) identifying a transparent approach for addressing existing and potential substances, and (2) the Workgroups addressing Questions 1, 2, and 3.

Workgroup Meeting Report-Outs

Mercury
Dan Hopkins reported  that the Workgroup would continue to address fish advisories and on-going releases. He mentioned sources of mercury items still in use, e.g. auto switches and thermostats, as well as institutional devices, e.g. stignometer. Dan also noted that the Workgroup wants to increase its focus on the dental sector.

Questions
George asked Dan if the Workgroup had addressed the questions posed earlier to the Integration Group. Dan responded that it did not do so specifically, and that that the group has achieved the in-use Hg challenge. There still remain significant challenges concerning Hg reservoirs in switches, thermostats, and dental amalgam, etc.

Gary asked the workgroup leaders to identify their specific challenges, undertake the analysis, and report by August.

PCBs
Tony Martig advised that the Workgroup briefly discussed where it stood  with its challenges. Work remains with regard to the US and Canadian challenges, for example,  the high concentrations of PCB in electric coke ovens and particular transformers. The group also discussed how to further their reduction levels and concluded that it needs to implement a communication strategy to reach a wider audience. The Workgroup is having difficulty doing everything on its own.

Questions
Todd asked if members of the sectors are attending the meetings. Tony replied that they are.

Dioxin and Furans
Erin White reported that the group did not specifically discuss the questions posed to the Integration Group. She noted that up to 50% of reservoir sources are without data according to a US task and assessment report. The group also discussed ash management and had a presentation given by IWSA on leachate management. An update from the burn barrel subgroup was provided.

B(a)P & HCB
Tom Tseng reported that the workgroup looked at PCP treated wood and how to deal with the ultimate disposal of PCB treated wood. With respect to pesticides, the group plans to talk to pesticide management agencies to obtain a better and more accurate estimate method. With regard to scrap tires as a pilot project, the group advised that fires must be prevented.

Agenda Planning for August and November Meetings

George Kuper expressed concern over  the media interruptions that occurred earlier in the day and suggested that a process be developed to deal with the press in future.

Margaret Wooster suggested that if the Integration Group agrees that the Workgroups will address Questions 1, 2, and 3, then each Workgroup should look at the questions through filters generated by the Integration Group over the past year. She also asked if it would be beneficial to shift to a sector approach and if the Workgroup should look at other native sectors and SMEs.

Other items that were raised:

List of Attendees

David Ailor, ACCCI
Robert Bailey, Bailey Associates
Tom Barnett, Ispat Inland
Tom Beidler, Syngenta Crop Protection
Peter Boyer, Great Lakes Science Advisory Board 
Marty Bratzel, International Joint Commission
Andy Buchsbaum, NWF
Brad Cumming, Environment Canada
Mike DeVito, USEPA
Jim Downes, Solutia Inc.
Danny Epstein, Environment Canada
Steward Forbes, Jacques Whitford
Lori Fryzuk, EC
Gary Gulezian, USEPA
Marcia Hardy, Albemarle
Meenaz Hassanali, McKenzieParis
Sandro Leonardelli, EC
Madhu Malhotra, Environment Canada
Hugh McAlear, US Army Northern Regional Environmental Office
Megan McGarrity, McKenzieParis
James McKenzie, McKenzieParis
George Kuper, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Allan Jones, Canadian Chlorine Co-ord Committee
Susan Nameth, Environment Canada
Ian Orchard, Environment Canada
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes
E. Marie Phillips, USEPA
Steve Risotto, HSIA
Joseph Stepun, Western Lake Superior San. District
Amy Thomas, Battelle
Vicki Thomas, USEPA
Cristiena Vyver, IJC
Alan Waffle, Environment Canada
Elizabeth Walsh, USEPA
Margaret Wooster, GLU
Karen Yang, Environment Canada

 

Local Navigation

 

Jump to main content.