. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Summary Report of the Workshop on Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition

.................................................. ..................................................... .....

. . . . . .

Summary Report of the Workshop on Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition

Held October 29 - 31, 1986

The Guild Inn, Scarborough, Ontario

Sponsored by the International Joint Commission's Great Iakes Science Advisory Board Water Quality Board, and International Air Quality Advisory Board

October, 1987 Windsor, Ontario

SUMMARY REPORT OF THE ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION WORKSHOP

Held at

The Guild Inn in Scarborough, Ontario

between

October 29 - 31,1986.

This summary report is respectfully submitted to the Science Advisory Board, the Water Quality Board and the International Air Quality Advisory Board of the International Joint Commission by the Workshop Planning Committee.

Canada United States

I I

Dr. James W.S. Yobng, Co-Chairman Mr. P.L. Wise, Co-Chairman

Dr. R.J. Allan (SAB) Dr. L. Machta (IAQAB)

Mr. T. Wagner (WQB)

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

SUMMARY REPORT LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL FROM THE ATMOSPHERIC WORKSHOP PLANNING COMMITTEE ...................... TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................... LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... Opening Speech: Commissioner L . Keith Bulen ......................................... Dinner Speech: Commissioner Robert S . K . Welch, Q.C ................................ MASS BALANCING OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THE GREAT LAKES: THE ROLE OF ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION: A SUMMARY ..................... O Background ....................................................................................... O Approach .......................................................................................... O The Mass Balance Summary ............................................................... O Recommendations of the Workshop .................................................... NORTH AMERICAN EMISSIONS INVENTORIES OF 14 PRIORITY TOXIC CHEMICALS: A SUMMARY ................................................................... O Introduction ............ .......................................................................... O Emissions/Production/Usage ............................................................... O Conclusion and Recommendation ... . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... . . . . .... . . EPILOGUE -- Summarizing Paper: Timothy F.H. Allen ...................... 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Observational Criteria and Complexity ................................................ Hierarchy Theory: Levels, Boundaries and Borders ...... . . . . . . . . . . . .... .... ...... Moving Between Levels: Explanations and R6les .................................. Observational Criteria: Perspective and Perception. ..... ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - Recommendation ..... ...................... ................................................. Process Attenuation ........................................................................... - Recommendation ............................................................................ The Matter of Scale and Predictions Concerning the Atmosphere .......... - Recommendation ............................................................................ System Specification .......................................................................... - Recommendation ............................................................................ Opportunities for Shared Problem Solving ............................................ - Recommendation ............................................................................ The Irony of Not Cooperating ............................................................. - Recommendation ............................................................................ Bibliography.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"

PAGE

i

iii

V

1 3 7

1 1 1 1 1 1 12 19

21 21 21 22

23 23 23 24 25 25 25 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 28 29 29

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S , C O N T I N U E D

APPENDICES:

A. Terms of Reference: Atmospheric Deposition Workshop Planning Committee .....................

B. Membership List: Atmospheric Deposition Workshop Planning Committee. ....................

C. List of Participants .........................................................................

D. Members of Workgroups ...............................................................

APPENDIX 1. Mass Balancing of Toxic Chemicals in the Great Lakes: The R61e of Atmospheric Deposition, b y William M.J. Strachan and Steven J . Eisenreich.

APPENDIX 2. Production, Usage and Atmospheric Emissions of 14 Priority Toxic Chemicals, Invited Paper b y E.C. Voldner, L . Smith and G . Ellenton.

PAGE

33

35

37

41

- iv -

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE NO . PAGE

1 . Annual PCB inputs to the Great Lakes and the fractions attributed to atmospheric pathways ................................................ 14

2 . Annual lead inputs to the Great Lakes and the fractions attributed to atmospheric pathways ................................................ 15

3 . Estimated percentage of pollutant loss due to sedimentation. volatilization and outflow for PCBs in each of the Great Lakes ......... 18

4 . Uncertainties associated with individual parameters ......................... 19

5 . Summary: Emissions and usage information retrieved ...................... 22

FIGURE NO . 1 . Data and process rate requirements to model mass balances for

fluxes of chemicals in each lake of the Great Lakes ......................... 13

2 . Great Lakes mass balance model: PCBs .......................................... 15

3 . Atmospheric loading of PCBs to the Great Lakes ............................. 16

4 . Atmospheric loading of B[a]pyrene to the Great Lakes ..................... 16

5 . Atmospheric loading of lead to the Great Lakes ............................... 17

- v -

I N T R O D U C T I O N

This summary report details the conclusions and recommendations which arose from the Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition Workshop held in Scarborough, Ontario, between October 29 and 31, 1986. The workshop was sponsored by the Science Advisory, the Water Quality and the International Air Quality Advisory Boards of the International Joint Commission.

During the workshop, speeches were made by Commissioners Bulen and Welch of the United States and Canadian sections of the International Joint Commission, respectively. The opening speech by Mr. Bulen and the dinner speech by Mr. Welch are reported here in their entirety.

The purpose of the workshop was to reach a consensus on the nature of atmospheric loadings of 14 specific toxic chemicals to the Great Lakes basin. Specifically, participants were to define and refine, using a mass-balance concept, the nature of the problem.

The workshop itself was attended by some forty technical and scientific experts in water and air pollution. These experts were given a technical discussion paper, prepared by Drs. Strachan and Eisenreich, on mass balancing of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes and the r81e of the atmosphere. During the workshop, presentations were made on various aspects of the models by other experts. Workgroups discussed data needs, models and results in depth. The report summarizes the revised estimates of loadings of selected toxic substances to the Great Lakes, together with highlights, conclusions and recommendations. Supporting documentation, including methods of calculation, is given in Appendix 1. One of the needs identified at the workshop was an analysis of the production, usage and atmospheric emissions of the priority chemicals discussed a t the workshop. A full report has since been prepared by Drs. Voldner and Ellenton and Mr. Smith and is reproduced as Appendix 2. This report again summarizes the highlights, conclusions and recommendations of the full report.

The last section of this report is an invited paper by Dr. Allen which deals with the critical r61e of scale as it could influence bilateral initiatives in controlling sources of toxic chemicals to the atmosphere. The paper is presented here in its entirety.

This summary report provides a concise overview of all materials presented and discussed a t the workshop, including a precis of the emissions paper which was completed as a result of discussions at the workshop.

Not only were the invited experts asked to reach consensus on the nature of the problem but also on its quantification. For example, how much PCB enters Lake Superior from the atmosphere and what confidence can be placed in the amount? Having thus utilized their collective knowledge, judgement and information, they were then asked how to minimize errors and improve estimates. Moreover, their advice was also sought on monitoring protocols, model development and recommendations for the future.

As governments act to protect one of our most important resources -- the Great Lakes -- we must ensure that we understand and quantify, to the best of our ability, the flows of pollutants in and into the basin. The arduous task, when successfully completed, will lead not only to cleaner and safer water, but will provide insight into current and future environmental issues throughout the transboundary region.

- 1 -

OPENING SPEECH

Commissioner L. Keith Bulen

The Commission genuinely compliments the three International Joint Commission's advisory boards working cooperatively to sponsor this workshop. The Great Lakes Science Advisory Board (SAB), the Great Lakes Water Quality Board (WQB) and the International Air Quality Advisory Board (IAQAB) have mutual interests. Although each views atmospheric deposition from a somewhat different perspective, they share a need to deepen our understanding of the process by which toxic chemicals may be a converter and travel through the air with consequent risks to our ecosystem.

It is the objective of the Commission to bring about effective coordination between and among various IJC entities working on monitoring questions so that the Commission may proceed in coherent fashion toward the goal of an integrated transboundary monitoring network.

The joint IAQAB/WQB/SAB Atmospheric Deposition Workshop was conceived in this spirit. While this workshop will deal directly with loadings and fluxes of certain toxic chemicals to the Great Lakes, the monitoring and modeling methods that will be presented and discussed should have a transboundary-wide application and further the objectives of the Commission.

These three entities, realizing the need for a holistic approach to environmental problems have broadened their abilities (and that of the Commission) to encompass prominently, activities relative to atmospheric contributions affecting transboundary areas.

The Water Quality Board has recently created the "Atmospheric Deposition Task Force" comprised of eight learned and experienced individuals from both Canada and the United States who, as a part of their charge, are "to develop a common protocol for atmospheric deposition monitoring."

The Water Quality Board is, through its various members and committees, involved in assessing the U.S. atmospheric deposition network activity in the Great Lakes basin. The U.S. €PA, as a result of such input, is now considering revisions to its GLAD (Great Lakes Atmospheric Deposition) network which I think is most interesting and appropriate.

Administrator Thomas and Minister McMillan have recently agreed to improve the coordination of atmospheric monitoring between the two nations. Significant emphasis and activity by U.S. and Canadian agencies, Provinces and certain States concerning atmospheric deposition monitoring, is either currently underway or in the process.

The SAB has restructured its committees, focus and form to reemphasize the ecosystem approach and toward more futuristic considerations relative to the basin. Very recently, they have even proposed an ecosystem ethic for the Great Lakes community. They have broadened their membership to include atmospheric expertise and are adopting integrative strategies in their approaches to advising the Commission and the WQB.

The International Air Quality Advisory Board is striving to assist the Commission, particularly with regard to a couple of special projects. They are creating or have also created an expert group on monitoring. The expert group on monitoring will analyze

- 3 -

existing monitoring networks and their data bases to develop methods of integration to help jurisdictions and the Parties describe the state of the environment in the transboundary region. This group will further look at the need for new or modified networks in moving toward the concept of a Transboundary Integrated Monitoring Network.

A recent and welcome exercise of the Board, in conjunction with the SAB, was the assimilation and study of the first of two recently completed, relatively comprehensive, inventories: one covering Transboundary Monitoring across North America; and the second covering primarily the Great Lakes region.

A subsequent report entitled "An Inventory of Current Environmental Monitoring Projects in the U.S. - Canadian Transboundary Region" by C.S. Glantz, M.Y. Ballinger and E.G. Chapman was also received by the Board in May of this year. A further product of their ongoing inventory information work was its conversion into a data base for use with the dBASE I11 software management system on an IBM compatible personal computer. The first phase was completed and distributed. I personally congratulate them on this singularly important accomplishment and most-useful undertaking.

The need for such an inventory with updates became apparent, when, in October, 1984, the Commission hosted a workshop in Philadelphia on the need for an integrated, transboundary monitoring network. The goal of that workshop was to establish a dialogue on methods by which we might more effectively and efficiently provide a basis for environmental decision-making in both the United States and Canada.

A computer mapping of existing monitoring facilities along the boundary area produced large blots of uncoordinated, sometimes single-purpose, often overlapping facilities. While the economies of shared data seem self-evident, it will take a deliberate, cooperative effort to overcome past practices and fierce turf-protection by the myriad of agencies engaged in surveillance and monitoring efforts.

We hope that this workshop, although focusing on specific chemicals and a specific area (Le. Great Lakes) will nevertheless produce results which can be applied more generally and which will be building blocks for our ultimate objective of integrated transboundary monitoring which will include an ecosystem-sensitive approach.

The Commission genuinely appreciates your willingness to attend and participate in this workshop. We particularly wish to thank the Planning Committee, co-chaired by Mr. Peter Wise and Dr. Jim Young with able Secretariat support by Dr. Andy Watson. We recognize the significant amount of preparation which has already been done and the further efforts which will go into making this a successful dialogue. I am certain that the Commission will benefit from your labors and I hope that each of you will be able to take home something which can be useful to you in other endeavors.

The problems of the Great Lakes led not only to the Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States but were key factors in the passage of national legislation to deal with water quality and other environmental problems. Due to the lengthy retention times of the Great Lakes (Lakes Superior and Michigan, particularly), the Great Lakes serve as a showcase for environmental problems. Therefore, works by scientists and regulators in the Great Lakes area have proven to be prototypes for much of North America and even the world. For example, under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, we established for the first time, large lake mathematical

- 4 -

modeling. We set advanced technology requirements for publicly-owned treatment works. We demonstrated the need for effective nonpoint source controls and we achieved phosphate-detergent bans in most of the Great Lakes jurisdictions. These achievements, while significant to the restoration of the health of the Great Lakes, have also served as models for the Chesapeake Bay and other water quality efforts within our two nations and in other regions of the world.

The Commission has considerable expectations for the success of this long-awaited workshop and other associated efforts, to develop tools to measure and predict the impact of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes. The problems of in-place polluted sediments, plus transport of toxic chemicals from the atmosphere, must be addressed in order for the Great Lakes to meet the objectives set out in the Agreement between the two countries.

The Great Lakes are an important part of the overall picture. We must bear in mind, however, through this workshop and after, that our ultimate goal is to strengthen and improve our monitoring capability throughout the entire transboundary region so that we can make wise and anticipatory decisions involving and affecting invaluable joint natural resources, including the friendship that transcends that common border.

Article I(g) of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 defines the "Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem" as:

" ... the interacting components of air, land, water and living organisms, including man, within the drainage basin of the St. Lawrence River at or upstream from the point at which this river becomes the international boundary between Canada and the United States."

The Agreement declares:

" ... that restoration and enhancement of the boundary waters cannot be achieved independently of other parts of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem with which these water interact."

An ecosystem approach means, therefore, that action affecting the lakes, taken or authorized by the governments, shall proceed on the understanding that the bounded field of policy is no less than the basin-wide watershed of the Great Lakes and the multifarious relationships interacting within and intruding from without.

Unfortunately, new emerging multidisciplinary environmental sciences overlaid by enormous political, economic and societal ramifications tend to often confuse and slow the ecosystem approach to environmental problem solving.

As we prepare to advise governments, on the occasion of reviewing the present Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, I, as one Commissioner, feel strongly the responsibility of the International Joint Commission under both the 1909 Treaty and the 1978 Agreement, for unifying and integrating the concept and principle of a basin-wide ecosystem.

Although cooperation in a unified and ongoing manner, between legions of disparate and divergent interests and entities is a frustrating and painful process, it nevertheless is much to be desired when one contemplates the results of failure to do so.

- 5 -

An agreed ecosystem management strategy and the implementation thereof is a formidable, but I submit, not impossible challenge, once governments and people at all levels are committed to shouldering and sharing the task.

I t seems to me that an opportunity and occasion for us to take a practical step toward such implementation is a t hand now, a t this workshop.

Again, on behalf of the Commission, thanks to our three family entitites who have come together in the exalted spirit of good will, mutual respect, cooperation and commitment to a better quality of life for millions of North American citizens and enhanced environments everywhere.

- 6 -

DINNER SPEECH

Commissioner Robert S. K. Welch, O.C.

Well , thank you very much colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. I am delighted to have this opportunity to share a t this particular point in the workshop, knowing that the published agenda indicates that this meal and everything is over a t 9:OO p.m. and it's now quarter-to-nine which does impose a certain discipline on the individual who now stands before you and presumes to have something to say, keeping in mind the tremendous amount of work which you have already done.

I'm grateful for my colleague's introduction of me. It is true that he had very little notice and that reminded me of an incident, although he didn't do the same thing, that happened to me not too long ago in my home area which is the Niagara area. In fact we live in Niagara-on-the-Lake. I was speaking to the local Lion's Club there and they had a habit of not having things too prepared, including the introduction of the speaker. When I got there, somebody (at least that's what they pretended was the situation), someone with whom I had gone to school was then asked if he would introduce me to the members of the Lion's Club and this fellow got up with the biographical material which a very devoted office staff had sent on ahead with all of the details of the living obituary carefully catalogued. This chap came to the microphone on the call of the Chairman of the meeting to introduce the speaker and he fumbled with all these papers and said, "I just came to the meeting like all you guys and I didn't know I was gonna have to introduce this here speaker," but he said, "I got these sheets and it says on these sheets that this here speaker really needs no introduction from anyone in this, his home town, now ...,'I he said, "You know I hope that's the case. I've lived here all my life and I have never heard of this guy before." Now let me tell you that does something for one's ego.

I've often wondered why you have to have introductions anyway until I heard this delightful story told of a clergyman, an Episcopalian-Anglican (so that I can cover both sides of the border) who, with his wife, was on his way to a particular speaking assignment in the City of St. Catharines. It was obvious that he was running late so as his wife was nervously seated at his side, he was exceeding the speed limit and we don't do that in Regional Niagara without eventually coming against a law enforcement agency which is very efficient--sometimes overly efficient. It was obvious by what the clergyman saw in his rear-vision mirror and by what he heard, that one of Niagara Regional's finest was anxious that he pull over for a consultation. Being one of the few law-abiding clergymen of the Anglican (or Episcopalian) Church in that part of the area, he pulled over and rolled his window down to await a lecture from the very stern-looking law enforcement officer and as this guy strolled over and leaned in, he said, "Where in the h---, Oh father!," he said, and i t was obvious that that man wished i t was his day off. Pleasantries followed and the window finally went up and lo-and-behold as the result of that conversation, we have my clergyman friend now not being pursued by Niagara's finest, but the man's out front clearing the traffic for the clergyman accompanied by his wife so that he can make his appointment. There was a silence in the front seat of the car, finally broken by the wife who made it quite clear that she was very upset about that exchange and about what had happened. The clergyman sort of chuckled a bit and there are those who would understand that in domestic situations such as that, that doesn't always go over very well and she said to her husband, in a very stern way, "Let's not treat this lightly. You know very well who that man up ahead thinks you are," and he said and chuckled, "Please don't get excited dear," in a very calm way, "I've got a pretty good idea who that man up there thinks 1 am, I've been sitting here wondering who he thinks YOU are." Well obviously that's why w e have introducers -- so there'll be no mistaken identity.

- 7 -

We understand the political background of my colleague, the Commissioner, is such that he is known to always rise to occasions when they're required and when, he himself, was a great campaigner. In those days when he was in that particular area of political activity, he was known to come across, in one of the rural areas, that which was obviously a campaign meeting. He saw a lot of people gathered at the crossroads of this particular part of the rural area, as the campaign was getting close to election day, not unlike perhaps the very period in which they [the U.S.] find themselves at the moment--next Tuesday, November 4th. There was a candidate as I recall, for the Senate, who as he arrived on this particular occasion and saw the number of people, wanted to elevate himself in such a way that he could look into the eyes of the voters and convince them to respect his sincerity, lo-and-behold saw what we'd call today a solid-waste disposal unit--in the old days, simply known as a manure speader--and he jumped up on this and could not let the occasion go by without saying "You know folks, this is the first time that I, let's call him John Smith, have ever stood on a democratic platform in the United States" and there was a bit of a chuckle and the result was that one of the old-timers in the back was heard to say with a very loud whisper, "You better not move around up there too quick, it's never held such a load before."

I'm delighted to be here because I feel quite privileged to be listed on the program along with my colleague, Commissioner Keith Bulen, as a 'host' for this important workshop and am very anxious that I don't personally have to pay the bill. These discussions follow the Philadelphia meeting of October, 1984, a t which the participants were invited to consider and I quote " ... a continuing binational exploration toward a transboundary monitoring network.'' The report of that workshop, in two volumes, is now available since you see the advertisement here before me and will be distributed at the conclusion of these remarks. Such partial distribution now will obviously save some postage and indeed may be seen as a 'prize' or a 'reward' for having to sit and listen to yet another new Commissioner.

The goal of Philadelphia was, in the words of its Chairman, Keith Bulen, 'I... to establish a heightened concern and constructive dialogue in support of a sound theoretical foundation toward a cost-effective, strategy-integrated, monitoring network in the United States-Canada transboundary region." Keith was also quick to point out the need to explore approaches to preventing pollution and other environmental changes that adversely affect the ecological processes critical for maintaining health and property and prosperity in our two countries. These words, ladies and gentlemen, came from an individual, my colleague, who views himself as a man who is not afraid to dream, but who understands fully the difference between dreams and reality, who envisions some sort of an integrated transboundary monitoring network for the United States and Canada that would serve as a prototype for the rest of the world. He, therefore, assumes as you can understand, a strong advocacy r61e as he continues to provide leadership.

Now we move from Philadelphia to Scarborough. Philadelphia, and now Scarborough, will be seen as important steps in assessing the significance of the atmospheric pathways. Indeed, if they lead to better decisions on the control of toxic chemicals, these meetings will even assume historic importance. In my struggle, and I underline that word to decide what I, a lowly layman, could say in the presence of such a learned and distinguished audience, to fulfill the mandate assigned to me yesterday morning by Dr. Young and 1 quote him 'I... to clear your mind over dinner"; which I interpreted to mean that I should avoid getting involved in the details of our workshop topics and themes and not overlook those minds which might have to be cleared because of your using imported, rather than our splendid domestic wines. I might say that I will be happy to give you certain suggestions a t the conclusion of this meal with respect to the product produced from the vineyards of my former constituency, 900 families depending upon your consumption of that wine.

- 8 -

As I reflected on what I should say, my attention focused on an observation made by Commissioner Bulen two years ago in Philadelphia, " ... our ability to measure and to quantify has become more sophisticated, we can measure to the parts per billion and trillion the presence of certain chemicals, but we often can't say what that presence really means to the health of our ecosystem." I would call this, Welch speaking, I call this the, so-what deficiency, so what? Having measured and announced new discoveries, sometimes in bold and scarey headlines, always followed by stories without the necessary qualifications, the public are far too often left without answers to the simple straight-forward so-what questions. What does this or that finding really mean to the health of the ecosystem? We appear, you see, in so many cases as reported in a certain report some years ago, to be loaded with data but we appear also to have no information. The public, I suggest to you, is entitled to full and responsible answers.

I thought i t might be helpful to reflect for just a moment, in fact for just a few more minutes, on the evolving r6les and responsibilities of experts, particularly the environmental experts, in a changing world. During these last two days we have heard a lot about loads and inputs of certain chemicals in the Great Lakes and people have talked about such things as grams or kilograms per hectare per year. We have also heard mention of the concentrations of these chemicals and as a layman, this doesn't really mean very much to me and I suspect to many others, unless we can also address the so-what questions. We have to apply a great deal of energy into addressing the so-what questions and do all we can to communicate so-what information to the general public. In this era of instant communication you would hardly have to be convinced of the importance of this matter.

May I remind you that public opinion polls show that the general public continues to be very concerned about the quality of the environment. Other polls show that scientists continue to have a high credibility rating with this same public. Indeed, may I point out to you, that it is not unusual for polls to indicate that scientists have one of the highest, if not the highest, credibility ratings of all professions. I might say that I was personally surprised about this, because I would have thought that lawyers and politicians had higher ratings!! It seems to me that this public confidence in the scientists needs to be protected, not simply for the sake of the experts, but as an important means of maintaining the credibility as well of institutions such as the IJC, which must provide advice and make decisions on a wide range of issues relating to environmental quality and environmental risks.

The so-what questions in the area of toxic chemicals often boil down to questions of risk and questions of safety. The expert's r6le in helping society come to grips with these fundamental considerations seems to me to be essential. Our society, as you know, attempts in many ways to manage risk and almost every daily newspaper carries examples of items that could influence our perception of the risks associated with chemicals in our environment. I think we would all agree that the expert has a responsibility to help estimate the risks to society. We probably wouldn't agree on what is the best way to assess and communicate, of course, the meaning of these estimates to a wider audience, but i t is well to keep in mind that we must all share in the final decision in respect to the acceptability of particular risks. By the same token, different individuals and different interests are likely to have very different views on safety. Once again safety, like risk, has a technical component which each of us has a responsibility to address, explicitly or implicitly, the question of how safe is safe enough? Well, obviously, time is running out. I suggest that this discussion could provide an interesting theme for some other occasion with obvious questions that could be raised for us to consider together.

- 9 -

I am inclined to think that both the environmental expert and the general public need to have a better understanding of their respective r6les and I believe these rciles are a t least potentially mutually supported. Today, with our uncertainty and rapidly changing priorities, it does seem to me to be important that the environmental expert has a responsibility to try and develop a broadly-based constituency amongst the general public.

Alvin Toffler helps me in summing up these thoughts on the r61e of the experts in western democracy in his speech to United States Senators and Congressmen. These two paragraphs in particular:

O first; tt. . . we need to devote far greater energies to anticipate forecasting, analyzing and appraising alternative futures, but we also need to find ways of involving ordinary citizens in the process of setting long-range priorities; and

O second; ... to cope with these mass, indeed earth-shaking shifts and changes in the years ahead, we will need a new fusion of expertise with democratic social control. A combination of specialists with their ability to see deep into a problem and an ordinary citizen with their scepticism and ability to see around the outer edges of problems.”

In conclusion, I might point out these always pleasant and encouraging words (if the speaker is both serious and honest), that the task of the environmental expert is both challenging and important. I know you are able to carry out the task with class and with sensitivity to its human dimension because we look to you as a credible voice of reason to help us chart individual and collective courses that are consistent with the local and global realities. Those courses, I suggest to you tonight, must lead somewhere between fool hardy risk-taking and an overly cautious fear of doing anything at all. Thank you very much.

- 10 -

MASS BALANCING OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THE GREAT LAKES: THE ROLE OF ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION: A SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

The International Joint Commission's Science Advisory Board's (1980) Report included an extensive review of the knowledge of the r81e of the atmosphere in the cycling of toxic chemicals as known at that time. This Science Advisory (SAB) Report noted tha t there was minimal atmospheric surveillance of toxics despite "evidence ... that airborne deposition is the significant source of some [toxic] contaminants to the lakes." Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were one such pollutant singled out. A number of data needs were identified: the atmospheric concentrations of toxic chemicals; the distribution between particulate and vapour phases; the amount of dry deposition; the influence of the episodic nature of the deposition of trace organics; the spatial and temporal differences in deposition; and the meteorological aspects affecting the deposition.

In its 1985 report, the International Joint Commission's Water Quality Board (WQB) recommended that efforts be undertaken to determine the significance of the atmospheric inputs of toxic chemicals to the Great Lakes and to model their transport, deposition and fate. The Board identified a list of eleven critical pollutants for which data were to be gathered and budgets prepared in order to assess the effectiveness of present controls and the need for additional ones. Some of these critical pollutants, particularly the metals and PCBs, were first observed in water samples in 1958 and later in rain samples and in the air.

The foregoing concerns on the part of these two boards under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, together with the mandate of the International Air Quality Advisory Board, prompted the International Joint Commission (IJC) to sponsor this workshop.

APPROACH

The mass balance approach requires that we know or can model all the sources of a toxic chemical to the Great Lakes and that we know or can model the transfer of the chemical between the major environmental compartments of the ecosystem, namely air, land, water, resuspended particulates and lake-bottom sediments. Processes and rates of processes of air-water or sediment-water transfer of chemicals are required to be known to complete such mass balances to determine the relative importance of the atmosphere as a source of a particular chemical to each lake and thus arrive a t an assessment of which point or area sources are most significant and perhaps which control strategies should have high priority.

The workshop considered the chemicals in three groups: trace metals (lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic); industrial organic compounds (benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), PCBs, HCB and mirex); and organochlorine pesticides (dieldrin, lindane, a-BHC and toxaphene). Four compounds originally among the list of critical pollutants require comment as to their omission. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAWS) are a large class of compounds and while some of their physico-chemical properties are similar, wide differences exist in vapour pressures and solubilities and hence, in environmental behavior. They were omitted since i t seemed impossible to adequately represent them wi th single-valued properties and concentration data which were largely unobtainable in

- 11 -

any event. The chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (specifically, the 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-congeners) and Kepone were not included because there are virtually no Great Lakes environmental data useful for the purposes of modeling the mass balances of these compounds and the same can be said about most of their properties.

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-benzene- hexachloride, a-HCH, a-BHC) were added to the original critical pollutant list because of their frequent occurrence in atmospheric samples from the Great Lakes region. Indeed, the latter is the most commonly observed compound from among the organochlorines found in the rain and is a congener of lindane, a chemical already on the list of critical pollutants.

THE MASS BALANCE SUMMARY

Atmospheric Deposition of Organic and Inorganic Pollutants

The model used for estimating the various fluxes to individual Great Lakes is shown in figure 1. This also indicates the information needed in order to carry out these estimates. Despite the many years of monitoring for toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes, the concentration data necessary to quantify the deposition and to do a mass accounting of most of the compounds were not generally available. Most of the data available were for biota and there is no method available to generate reliable, representative concentrations for the several lake media in the basin from these. Particularly, data required include levels of contaminants:

O in airborne particulates, preferably as a function of particle size; O in the vapour phase; O dissolved in the surface waters; O adsorbed on waterborne particles; and O in surficial sediments.

Concern was expressed over whether existing -- or future -- data on deposition concentrations would be representative of over-lake and whole-lake conditions. Present data often pertain to local and shore-oriented sampling and there has been inadequate effort to determine whether these are representative of the system as a whole. There has also been insufficient effort on determining seasonal effects on these concentrations.

In addition to the concentrations, process rates were felt to be poorly described for most compounds. Important data elements still required include:

O deposition velocities of air-borne particulates, preferably as a function of particle size;

O mass transfer coefficients of the chemicals for water and air or, at a minimum, the bulk transfer coefficient; and

O the settling velocities and resuspension rates of suspended solids and surface sediments, respectively.

Again, it was considered that seasonal effects required investigation.

- 12 -

FIGURE 1. Data and process rate requirements to model mass balances for f luxes of chemicals i n each lake o f the Great Lakes.

Rai n f a l 1 Gas Exchange F, = Cr.P.SA Fv = K. (Cw-CCa. fV .R.TI. SA

H D r y f a l l

Fd = c a .(l-fv)-Vd.SA

- Tr ibu ta ry

t t Connecting Channel >

"""""""""- > 'lake = 'w + 'ss Outflow Ft = C .Q

"""""""""_ Fo = Co(orlake) *Qo

F = C S """""""""-

FCC = C Q cc' cc Sediments

DATA REWIREMENTS:

C ' s - part iculate), water (d issolved), suspended so l ids - ........ .moles/m

fv - f r a c t i o n o f atmospheric contaminants present as vapour ................ fS - f rac t ion o f lake a rea w i th s ign i f i can t depos i t ion ..................... H - Henry's Law constant (atm.m /mole) K - bulk (or net) mass t rans fe r coe f f i c i en t .......................... (m/a) P - prec ip i t a t i on t o l ake su r face .................................... (m/a) Q's - f lows i n t r i b u t a r i e s and connecting channels (m /a) R - gas constant (atm.m /mole. K) SA - sur face area o f the lake (m 1 T - surface air temperature ( K)

concentrations i n r a i n , a i r (vapour plus

t r i b u t a r i e s ( t o t a l ) and connecting channel s ( t o t a l 1. 3

3 .....................................

3 .................... 3 0 ..........................................

2 .......................................... 0 ...........................................

Vd - par t i cu la te depos i t i on ve loc i t y .................................. (m/a)

'act ............ - average sediment accumulation rate (deposi t ion zones) (m/a)

NOTE: 1 Fs should be more precisely described by two te rms -- suspended

s o l i d s e t t l i n g and sediment resuspension: Fss = Css. fssfS.SA

Fsr = C .f .SA t Where Cs i s concentrat ion i n s rs t h e s u r f i c i a1 sediments

2 Fv, Fd could be expressed i n te rms o f ac tua l concen t ra t i ons i n the vapour and adsorbed states, i f these data were avai lable:

Fv = K. (Cw - C, . a). SA H

3 No allowance i s made for degradat ion i n the compartments. For "persistent" chemicals, this should not introduce a major error.

- 13 -

In the case of the physical properties of the compounds which affect their distribution, it was felt that current reports of these properties could vary by factors as large as 2x for solubility, 4x for vapour pressure and the Henry's Law constant, 2x for the octanol-water partition coefficient KO, (by which sediment sorption constants and bioconcentration factors are often predicted), 4x for sedimentation rates, 3x for dry particle deposition rates and lox for the bulk transfer coefficient. These imprecisions could result in uncertainty in the compartmental concentrations by as large a factor as lox. The participants at the workshop felt it was important to determine these properties as a function of temperature.

Of the fourteen chemicals of interest here, sufficient information to attempt the construction of a mass budget (input-output) was available only for PCBs, DDT, BaP and lead. For the remaining chemicals, insufficient data are available even on atmospheric and rain concentrations to estimate atmospheric inputs and for the four chemicals noted, there remain large and unknown uncertainties in the mass balance calculations. Of the chemicals listed, data adequate to attempt an estimate of atmospheric and non-atmospheric inputs to the Great Lakes are available only for PCBs and are shown in table 1.

TABLE 1. Annual PCB inputs to t h e Great Lakes and the fractions attributed to atmospheric pathways.

Total Inputs O/O Atmospheric ~~

Lake kg Yf" Direct Indirect

Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron Lake Erie Lake Ontario

606 685 636

2520 2540

90 0 58 0 63 15 7 6 6 1

Atmospheric deposition is the sum of that which falls on the lake surface (direct) and that which falls "upstream" and flows through the connecting channels to the "downstream" lake. A schematic diagram (figure 2) shows mass balances for PCBs: inflow (Fi); outflow (Fo); atmospheric input (FA); loss to the atmosphere (Fv); net loss to the sediments (Fs); and tributary input (FT). The total atmospheric component of the loading of PCBs is shown as ATM = 90% for Lake Superior, for example.

An extremely important aspect of these calculations is to allow for that portion of the chemical transported downstream by a connecting channel resulting from atmospheric deposition on the lakes upstream. Thus, while the total atmospheric input of PCBs to Lake Ontario is 7% (figure 2), it is perhaps more useful to divide this into the direct atmospheric component to the lake and the indirect atmospheric component from upstream so as to arrive at the total atmospherically derived load. This was done for PCBs and the results are shown in figure 3. For Lake Ontario, for example, the direct atmospheric load was 6% and the indirect atmospheric load from upstream was 1%, for a total atmospheric input of 7%. These values are probably conservative as they do not include the atmospheric component from tributaries other than the connecting channel nor the direct discharges in most instances.

The atmosphere was thus estimated to contribute from 90% of t h e total PCB inputs to Lake Superior but only 7% of total inputs to Lake Ontario. However, the importance

- 14 -

of atmospheric inputs cannot be concluded with precision without. improved knowledge of the loadings from non-atmospheric sources.

FIGURE 2. Great Lakes mass balance model: PCBs.

"

Fdd

Superior

14

-

Erie

Units: kg yr-1

The upper Great Lakes of Superior, Michigan and Huron receive a significantly greater fraction of their total PCB input from the atmosphere than do the lower Great Lakes of Erie and Ontario. This is attributed to the larger surface areas and relative lack of local sources in the upper lakes as compared to the lower lakes and to extensive contaminant loading from sources located on the connecting channels comprising the St. Clair, Detroit and Niagara Rivers and from other point sources.

The percentage of total inputs for the other organic compounds investigated attributed to the atmospheric pathways is estimated to be: t-DDT, 2 2 4 7 % and BaP, 72-96% (figure 4). Mirex is observed mainly in Lake Ontario where the atmosphere contributes less than 5% (if any).

The best information available for the atmospheric input of trace metals is for lead.

TABLE 2. Annual lead inputs to the Great Lakes and the fractions attributed to atmospheric pathways.

Total Inputs YO Atmospheric

Lake kg Yr-l Direct Indirect

Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron Lake Erie Lake Ontario

24 1 543 430 567 426

97 0 99.5 0 94 4 39 7 50 23

- 15 -

FIGURE 3. Atmospheric loading of PCBs to the Great Lakes.

ATM: 90%

Superior

57%

ATM: 5 w 0

Michigan

FT=0.64

ATM: 78%

Huron

6 f i FT= 2.52 ATM: 13%

Erie

Ontario

Units: kg yr-l

FIGURE 4. Atmospheric loading of B[a]pyrene to the Great Lakes.

ATM: 96%

Superior

86%

ATM: 86% J

Michigan

Ul ATM: 80% Huron

ATM: 79% - Erie

Units: k g yr-l

FT=155

I ATM:720'0

Ontario

NOTE: FT: total wet surface flux of organic compounds in the atmosphere.

- 16 -

Even more than for PCBs, the atmospheric deposition of lead is an important, if not the dominant, input pathway. The declining use of lead in automotive gasoline due to government-imposed controls has markedly affected lead loadings to the Great Lakes in recent years. A schematic diagram (figure 5 ) compares the direct and indirect atmospheric components of Pb loading in the lakes. For example, the upstream atmospheric component for Pb to Lake Ontario is 23% and the direct atmospheric input is 50%; for a total atmospheric input of 73% of the total Pb load to that lake.

FIGURE 5. Atmospheric loading of lead to the Great Lakes.

Michigan Erie Units: kg yr-1

Detailed mass balance calculations and the data on which these calculations and those for the other critical pollutants are given in Appendix 1 to this report.

Atmospheric Deposition Processes

A number of important processes were identified by which toxic metals and organic chemicals enter the aquatic ecosystem directly from the atmosphere. These included wetfall deposition (rain, snow together wi th associated particulate material), dry deposition (particulate matter, excluding that deposited during wetfall) and vapour exchange (the net flux from direct sorption by and volatilization from water). It was concluded that such direct inputs do not adequately indicate the significance of the atmosphere to the total loading in any lake except Lakes Superior and Michigan. There are substantial inputs via the connecting channels and possibly tributaries, particularly the former and a sizeable fraction of this is derived from the atmosphere. Groundwater and non-tributary runoff were also discussed but it was concluded that these inputs were of considerably lesser significance relative to the other named mechanisms.

Particles and gases may be removed from the atmosphere by precipitation scavenging (rain and snow) and by dry-particle deposition. Further, a net removal of gases may occur through vapour transfer across the air-water interface. Evidence suggests that precipitation scavenging of fine particles (<2 pm) and vapour dominates the atmospheric inputs distant from major point sources or source regions; dry deposition of larger particles may be more important closer to sources. The ratio of wet-to-dry deposition for pollutants concentrated in the fine particles should be in the order of 1.5 - 4.0:l.O. The mass balance paradigm for chemicals wi th sufficient concentration data to make such estimates exhibited the following ratios: PCBs, 1.3;

- 17 -

lead, 3.5-5.0; DDT, 0.26-0.5; and BaP, 0.32-0.82. Except for PCBs and Pb, the wet-to-dry ratios appear too low. This suggests that either the estimates of wet deposition are too low, or more likely, that dry deposition values are too high.

Lake Loss Processes

The important mechanisms whereby chemicals are lost from the system are: export via the connecting channels or the St. Lawrence River; sedimentation (the net result of settling and resuspension); volatilization; biodegradation; hydrolysis; and photochemical degradation. The mass balance paradigm used here assumed the latter three removal processes were negligible or were included in other loss processes. Some discussion took place on the water-to-air transfer of contaminants sorbed to particles and present in aerosols. This loss from the lakes may take place as a consequence of bubble-bursting in whitecap situations; however, there was inadequate information on the process and therefore, little could be established about the significance of this "output" mechanism. I t was a consensus opinion, however, that i t was of less significance than other mechanisms. For nearly all organic pollutants, volatilization appeared equal to or greater than the loss due to sedimentation. For example, the percentage of pollutant loss due to sedimentation, volatilization and outflow for PCBs in each of the Great Lakes was estimated.

TABLE 3. Estimated percentage of pollutant loss due to sedimentation, volatilization and outflow for PCBs in each of the Great Lakes.

P E R C E N T A G E

Lake Sedimentation Volatilization Outflow

Lake Superior Lake Michigan Lake Huron Lake Erie Lake Ontario

11 31 19 45 30

87 2 68 1 75 6 46 9 53 17

The calculations reported here and in recent literature support the hypothesis that the Great Lakes are actively degassing organic contaminants deposited historically. This is a mechanism contributing to both lake detoxification and global redistribution of "old" chemicals. Although the r61e of volatilization in pollutant loss from the lake is important, the magnitude and perhaps even the direction of transfer are very uncertain and await better measurements, transfer constants and models.

Uncertainties in the Mass Balance Calculations

The participants of the Mass Balance workgroup agreed that the uncertainties in the inputs and outputs of chemical pollutants in the Great Lakes should be estimated. However, the quality of the data describing atmospheric concentrations and the uncertainties in the mass transfer coefficients prohibited a statistically-based error analysis. A list of probable errors associated with individual parameters was prepared and the participants developed a consensus on the approximate magnitude of these errors, see table 4.

- 18 -

TABLE 4. Uncertainties associated with individual parameters.

Aqueous solubility 2x Vapour pressure Henry's Law constant Octanol-water coefficient Aqueous concentrations

2 - 4x 2 - 4x 2x 2 - 4x

N e t lake-wide sedimentation rates 2x Recent sediment concentrations 3x Rain and aerosol concentrations 2x Dry particle deposition velocity 2 - 4x Air-water mass transfer coefficient 2 - lox

The message is clear -- theoretical, laboratory and field investigations must be employed to reduce the uncertainty in each of these parameters before precise measures of atmospheric deposition of toxic pollutants and their importance to total lake inputs and outputs can be achieved. The integrated Great Lakes monitoring effort wi th a strong research component, now being discussed by the relevant agencies in Canada and the United States, is a first step in that direction.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORKSHOP

As a general comment, the workshop participants agreed that the concentrations of the critical pollutants in rain, in atmospheric aerosols/particulates, as vapour, dissolved in water, adsorbed to suspended solids and in surficial sediments, should all be determined for each lake basin. The different samplings should have a similar time period and it is expected that this would require some coordination of effort. To accomplish this, the workshop endorsed the concept of a single "research" station and three or four "satellite" stations on each lake with the two nations dividing the costs and operational responsibilities equitably. Replication and determination of the process rate information would be the focus at the research sites; the satellite stations would be used to improve the spatial resolution of any concentration patterns. This proposal was first put forward a t an international workshop sponsored by EPA in November, 1985 (at Minneapolis). The report of that meeting contains additional information on such a network. Further discussion on such a network is also expected in a forthcoming report from the Water Quality Board's Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Task Force.

A strategy and the necessary sampling instrumentation and analytical methods, need to be developed for assessing atmospheric inputs of chemicals at the air-water interface. This requires the development of information relevant to particulate deposition and the vapour exchange as well as rain and snow deposition. To determine the vapour exchange, volatilization will have to be investigated and this, in turn, will require data on concentrations and several transfer rates within the water column.

Specifically, the needs noted by workshop participants were:

1. The concentrations of critical organic and inorganic contaminants in rain and snow, inatmospheric aerosols and in the vapour state must be determined for each of the Great Lakes basins. Insufficient data for these compartments presently prevent the reliable assessment of atmospheric deposition to the lakes.

- 19 -

2. The strategy and instrumentation for assessing atmospheric inputs to the lakes need to be developed. Field samplers are available to adequately collect rain for quantifying organic and inorganic pollutant inputs; theoretical and applied research is badly needed to properly assess the contributions by dry deposition of particles and vapour exchange.

3. To properly assess wet deposition, rain and snow collection methodology needs to be standardized and spatial and seasonal impacts of chemical concentrations determined for these samples.

4. To properly assess dry deposition, i t is essential to: determine aerosol deposition velocities as a function of particle size; determine the distribution of chemicals between the aerosol and vapour phases; determine the concentrations of chemicals on particles as a function of particle size; characterize meteorological conditions at the parameterization collection sites; and perform parameterization experiments in the field and laboratory to verify dry deposition models.

5. To properly assess vapour exchange at the air-water interface, i t is essential to: determine the distribution of a chemical between the particle (i.e. "bound") and dissolved phases of the water and the factors which control this; establish the variations of Henry's Law constant as a function of temperature; determine the value of the mass transfer coefficient as a function of environmental conditions (i.e. temperature and wind speed); and to study the dynamic mechanisms of gas transfer at the air-water inferface.

6 . An integrated, binational atmospheric deposition monitoring network with a continuing research component is needed to properly assess inputs. While such a network is being developed, existing monitoring projects need to be continued in order to ensure baseline data for subsequent trend analysis.

7. Careful consideration should be given to the selection of specific atmospheric pollutants for further study. Criteria for selection need to be defined but should include potential toxic effects, emission strengths, likelihood of an important atmospheric pathway and ability to analytically measure atmospheric concentrations.

8. Sensitive analytical strategies and techniques need to be used to detect and quantify trace concentrations of selected pollutants.

9. Aquatic inputs of pollutants from non-atmospheric sources such as from polluted sediments, tributaries and connecting channels, need to be quantified to construct a proper mass balance model.

10. Models describing the atmospheric fate and transport of pollutants need to be linked to aquatic fate models.

11. Chemical accumulation in and deposition to small, remote lakes should be studied as such investigations may provide suitable surrogates for determining inputs to and process-related parameters relevant to the Great Lakes.

- 20 -

NORTH AMERICAN EMISSIONS INVENTORIES OF 14 PRIORITY TOXIC CHEMICALS: A SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Atmospheric input of toxic trace metals and organic compounds to the Great Lakes basin is recognized as a significant contribution and in some cases, the dominant contribution, to the presence of these toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Fuller knowledge of this atmospheric contribution is essential in establishing the cause-effect relationship between inputs to the lake and the state of health of the aquatic ecosystem. Rational management of this valuable ecosystem requires such scientific understanding.

A fundamental component of the atmospheric system depositing to the Great Lakes is the emissions of the relevant toxic chemicals. Characterizing these emissions with adequate resolution in space and time is an elusive goal, but progress toward this goal is necessary if better understanding is to be attained. Information has been assembled on emissions and usage on the fourteen (11 from WQB and 3 extra) priority toxic chemicals designated by the International Joint Commission for an initial, indepth study. These chemicals include trace metals, commercial and industrial chemicals or byproducts and organic pesticides.

EMISSIONS/PRODUCTION/USAGE

A summary of information on emissions and usage, obtained from various agencies and through an extensive literature survey is shown in Table 5. For Canada and the United States, the year of the most recent emission data found and the availability of national and regional totals for the United States and national and provincial totals for Canada are shown. Also, the availability of emission sectorial data is indicated. Table 5 reveals that relatively complete emission estimates are available for only the metals lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic, with limited emissions information reported for PAH and PCDD/PCDF for both countries and for hexachlorobenzene in the United States. For the remaining chemicals, where essentially no emissions information is available, the acquisition of data on production/sales and usage is a preliminary step toward estimating emissions.

1.

2.

Lead. Mercury, Cadmium and Arsenic

The most complete emissions information is for lead. Data for each of the metals have been obtained for 1985 in the United States and 1982 in Canada. Data include provincial total in Canada and regional (census) total in the United States for each of the primary emitting sectors. Historical and projected emissions of lead were also acquired, as were indicators of future changes in emission levels for the other metals.

PAH, BaP. PCBs. PCDD/PCDF and HCB

PAH and BaP are undesired byproducts of combustion. The limited estimates found for them vary among authors because of differing emissions factors and the incomplete nature of their data and the strong dependence of these emissions on process conditions.

Estimated emissions of PCBs are not available. Data are presented on the historical production and sales of PCBs and amounts in use and in storage.

- 21 -

Estimates on the release of PCDD/PCDFs to the North American environment include limited emissions data. The quality of estimated emissions was judged to be poor due to conflicting estimates among authors. Production information on PCDD/PCDFs is not relevant because these chemicals are undesirable byproducts. Information has been presented on production and usage of chemical precursors of PCDD/PCDFs.

Emission estimates for hexachlorobenzenes were assembled for the United States. Although these estimates cover the major emitting sectors, they are quite uncertain and their geographical allocations were not quantified.

3. Pes ticides

Pesticide emission estimates are not available. Since emissions are related to the amount and method of application of these chemicals to crops and livestock, historical production and usage data have been obtained for the United States and Canada.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Efforts to compile emission inventories for toxic substances are severely constrained by the availability of representative emissions data and the incomplete nature of these data. A substantial research and measurement program is required to change this situation for most toxic substances of concern. The benefits to be gained from such an undertaking include enhancing our ability to prioritize the relative importance of atmospheric sources in the management of these chemicals in the Great Lakes system and providing necessary input information to the scientific study of the transport and fate of these chemicals.

UNITED STATES To ta l

Sector Region Trends

Qual i t y

C A N A D A To ta l

Sector Region Trends

Q u a l i t y

CONSUMPTION/ PRODUCTION/ SALES

U.S. Canada

STORAGE SPILLS ua l i t y I n d i c a

TABLE 5. Summary: Emissions and usage information retrieved.

- t

I : x : I I

I 0 I

I , I I

3 r s : 0 1 . Marg ina l 1 y acceptabl e . 2. Questionable.

""4

I

I I I

3 : 3 : 3

3. Unacceptable or non-exi stent

- 22 -

E P I L O G U E

Summarizing Paper: Timothy F.H. Allen

The International Joint Commission (IJC), Canada and the United States, deals with complex issues for which the complexity derives partly from a need to be concerned wi th two different but overlapping mosaics: political units along with ecological patches on the landscape (Gilbertson 1985). Some political boundaries may follow ecologically significant features on the landscape such as borders defined by rivers or shorelines; but, many political lines of demarkation cut across natural ecological divisions and have ecological significance only in the way that they can divide patterns of human exploitation of natural resources.

OBSERVATIONAL CRITERIA AND COMPLEXITY

Ecological and political systems have no simple mapping of one onto the other, therefore, studying the interaction of such entities is a difficult business. It entails a change in observational criteria that must be carefully conducted to assure the elicitation of any workable relationship.

Complexity Modern systems theory shows that complexity comes not from the object being investigated but the manner

in which investigation is conducted (Allen and Starr, 1982). The critical factor generating complexity is how a system is described. Complexity increases if the description invokes several levels of organization simultaneously; thus problems dealing with the political implications of the border between Canada and the United States of America are complex.

Before any adequate prescription for the solution of transboundary problems is possible, there must first be an adequate description of the interacting elements in the problems. Such a description in the Great Lakes region probably involves more than just two nation states, even more than a handful of states and a couple of provinces. It should also consider local townships within the upper-level political entities (L. Keith Bulen, personal communication). The form of the problems to be solved forces us to couch questions in terms of the interaction of many political and ecological levels. Once the questions are asked, the multitude of levels cannot be avoided and the complexity occurs by the formal definition above.

HIERARCHY THEORY: LEVELS, BOUNDARIES AND BORDERS

Boundaries There is a body of ideas, collectively called "hierarchial theory," which addresses complex systems. I t is par-

ticularly suitable for analyzing large scale ecological and political systems as they interact in a spatial matrix. In ecosystems and also particularly in political systems, the placement of boundaries greatly influences the outcome. Boundaries are recognized, in hierarchy theory, as critical to our understanding.

- 23 -

Levels Hierarchy theory is concerned with levels of organization. The levels are not asserted as being necessary or real;

rather they are devices to organize and make observations. Levels are characterized by the bounded entities that populate them. It is the interaction of different levels that generates complexity.

The main point is that ecological and political entities are surrounded by boundaries. Note that the boundaries (borders) that circumscribe the nations are not only different in extent from the more local borders surrounding municipalities or even states and provinces but they are also different in character. To a great degree, national borders delimit movement of money and even language, whereas more local borders are far more permeable to coinage and culture.

Consider the United StatedCanada border as a case in point. Not only does less mail bound from across the United States enter Windsor than Detroit but United States' mail bound for Canada that crosses the border at Detroit/Windsor has senders from a significantly different mix of states. A comparison of mail reaching the border from either side shows that the addresses of people who send mail to Windsor from the United States are more evenly spread across the entire United States of America while senders of U.S. mail to Detroit will be proportionally concentrated more in Michigan and Ohio.

Filters The inland city limits of Detroit are only municipal whereas the Detroit River is international. I t is helpful

to think of boundaries and borders as filters that only let upper level information through. In the case of the border between Detroit and Windsor, the frontier acts like a filter that allows easier passage to signals of a national as opposed to a local character.

MOVING BETWEEN LEVELS: EXPLANATIONS AND ROLES

Entities at a given level are characterized by the filtering properties of their surfaces. Entities belonging to a higher level are characterized in the easier hierarchy of levels by coarser-grained filters: national boundaries allow passage to larger-scaled signals than do municipal boundaries. The boundaries of lower-level entities act, accordingly, as filters of more fine-grained information.

Levels Above and Below The particular level that is above or below a level in question is not a given, but rather its identity is determined

by the criteria that are used to make observations (Allen et al. 1984). That is to say, different levels will emerge above or below as alternative aspects o f the system are addressed.

Explanation An explanation is a reduction to a lower level. I f one changes the phenomenon of interest then a different explanation

becomes pertinent, even if one stays with the same system. Any given thing has many behaviors and different behaviors need different explanations.

- 24 -

For example, change in forest vegetation over time demands an explanation that is different from the explanation for forest-soil nutrient accumulation even if it is the same forest under consideration.

R6le In a sense, function of r6Ze of an entity is the opposite o f an explanation o f how the entity works. This is because

' W e " or "purpose" implies a relationship not to the next level down but to the next level up. We have no difficulty in recognizing a man as both a father and a factory worker. The r61e or purpose of a given entity is determined b y the criteria for observation that assign the upper level. The difference comes from the upper level to which we chose to assign him, the family or the workplace, respectively.

An important axiom is associated with the preceding definitions. A given piece of ground may be recognized as both part of the territory of a natiodstate and part of an upper-level ecological system. The central point is that WE MUST BE UNAMBIGUOUS AS TO WHICH IS THE UPPER LEVEL WE CHOOSE TO ADDRESS THROUGH THE QUESTIONS WE ASK.

OBSERVATIONAL CRITERIA: PERSPECTIVE AND PERCEPTION

I t is easy to mistake boundaries as being unimportant by virtue of their not being relevant to some alternative criterion for observation. This error can be disastrous if several different world views or perceptions are required to solve a problem.

An ecologist might assert that national boundaries (borders) are arbitrary political lines and thus insignificant. To do so would be a mistake. Similarly, a politician untrained in ecology might not appreciate the characteristics of the edge of an ecosystem and mistakenly assert the edge is unimportant because it is intangible and hard to recognize on the ground. I f one considers the atmospheric aspects of an ecosystem, then the boundary becomes spatially ambiguous even though there exists an important closure of loops of interaction. The ecologist is self-righteous and the politician is ecologically- insensitive when each discounts the critical boundaries of the other.

The problem is not esoteric because politics and ecology need become bedfellows in many everyday circumstances. Cases in point would be when we consider the use of natural resources or the diffusion of ecologically significant chemicals such as pesticides (Gilbertson 1985).

RECOMMENDATION A rapprochement between ecological and political world views is important and is worth some investment of effort.

PROCESS ATTENUATION

The boundary around an entity is a structural reflection of a sharp change in the force of critical processes. Natural boundaries are the places where a large number of processes all attenuate at once.

- 25 -

The physical nature of boundaries is a powerful and helpful factor for prediction because of the coincidence of many factors in one frame. This is also true for the physical nature of political boundaries in that money, traffic flow, culture and jurisdiction, amongst other things, all reach their limits at the same points in space.

Ecological boundaries also meet the criterion for being natural surfaces. Watershed effects, for example, run along limits of nutrient budgets and reflect some aspects of the limits of the distribution of many species in that fish occupy some watersheds and not others. This is the reason for many societal laws about connecting different riverine systems. In societal laws about watersheds, we see the interaction of political and ecological considerations. This is only possible when the political boundaries in question completely surround the ecological watershed.

RECOMMENDATION In advising the governments of the United States and Canada, the IJC should be cognizant of the special responsibility in creating internationa2 political regions which can contain and therefore be effective stewards of international ecological entities. Regions for atmospheric problems may sit back from the international frontier hundreds of miles.

THE MATTER OF SCALE AND PREDICTIONS CONCERNING THE ATMOSPHERE

Making a recommendation about control in the atmospheric deposition system between Canada and the United States essentially amounts to reliance on two predictions:

1. what will happen if the recommendation is not followed?; and

2. what will happen if it is?

Note regarding: "prediction" All system description has an implicit level of analysis. The behavior of most systems can be predicted when

described at some appropriate level of resolution and analysis, but any system can appear unpredictable if analyzed at an inappropriate level. We now have some understanding of the differences between system specifications which are workable and those which are not. The critical criterion is the scale used by the scientist or manager.

One class of workable perspectives yields "small number systems" where the parts are f e w enough so that each can have, if necessary, its own equation (e.g. a model of planets revolving to give a solar system). Another class of manageable systems is called "large number systems and here there are so many parts that one can predict using the average part (e.g. the use of perfect gas particles to yield the gas laws). The trouble occurs with "middle number systems" where there are too many parts to model each separately, but not enough so as to subsume their individuality in an average.

- 26 -

-__- RECOMMENDATION If the level the scientist or manager uses for system description yields a middle-number system, there are two courses of action: ( 1 ) respecify the relative scale by asking a different question; or ( 2 ) start again with a new set of parts that gives a new definition to system structure. I f one is to make realistic and helpful policy for atmospheric deposition in northern North America, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO SPECIFY AT T H E RIGHT LEVEL.

SYSTEM SPECIFICATION

There is no reason to expect the effective level of description to allow a separation of system parts by international boundaries. In fact, it is unlikely to do so. An insistence on modeling the two nations as discrete entities will yield a middle-number specification of the system when questions of international ecological concern are posed. The system so specified will have an intractable number of significant factors that cannot be ignored and still give predictions.

This means that (for well-established reasons from system science) functionally, there is probably no system specification that can both recognize the international frontier and address questions of regional deposition. Note, for example, that processes of the Great Lakes region mix waters of Canada and the United States as well as the atmosphere above them, yet flows of information are stronger within countries than between them.

RECOMMENDATION The system must be respecified as a "small" or "large" number system which asserts parts according to the p r i n c i p a l flows and processes, not the international frontier.

The problem of atmospheric deposition of toxic chemicals is an interference pattern between two sets of independent processes both operating on the same part of the earth's surface. The political and economic mosaic has very real flows and cycles that produce the human mosaic with its settlements, transport and information systems. This is the system that generates the material causing the deposition problem. The pieces of the ecological mosaic are cells on the landscape formed by closure of ecological fluxes. These ecological processes are the means whereby deposition is manifested. The human mosaic and the ecosystem mosaic are related: one is the source and the other is the sink. Therefore, if we are to solve the pressing questions of Great Lakes deposition we must somehow describe the interaction of the two sets of processes.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED PROBLEM SOLVING

The problem is difficult because it needs to be addressed at several levels of organization simultaneously. A t least one level of analysis must address both the human (technocultural) and the ecosystem mosaics simultaneously and that level has to be high enough so as to subsume both the political and the ecological systems as joint subsystems of some even larger system.

- 27 -

The link between the cultural and ecological observational criteria only occurs at levels high enough to incorporate both. The higher the metalevel, the more complex the problem because a higher metalevel contains more intermediate levels to be included in the analysis and the implementation of the solution.

The governments of Canada and the United States, as separate entities, are at too low a level to attack the problem and to find the best solution to toxic deposition issues in the Great Lakes region. Vested national interest must be subsumed by a larger interest, the international level. The optimal solution for either nation alone is not relevant since the perfect solution for one is probably unacceptable to the other.

The only solution that matters (now and for the long haul) is a t the international level where recommendations for action need only be acceptable to both. The separate nations, therefore, do not determine the solutions. Rather, they are a set of limitations on what is possible. The actual determination of course of action comes from the upper, international level.

The only interests that can be properly served are those of the entire populace independent of nationality. The problem must be couched in the most general terms. Only arguments made from the position of mutual long-term concern will prevail.

Arguments made at the lower levels will lead to middle-number system confusion. At lower levels, if all parties do not find their interests served, then individual small-scale events (like a lobby or a local political maneuver) can easily divert the course of action in unpredictable and possibly counter-productive ways.

To achieve the high level of analysis that is required, the process of negotiation must be as all-encompassing as possible. It is best to deal with as much of the entire border as possible to prevent a proposed solution from becoming unstable because of local considerations. The problem may be as localized as the Niagara River, but it is best approached at the level of long-term international relations (Gilbertson 1985). Any more-local attacks will be blunted by at least one of the numerous local considerations. The interests of all local business, through its lobby, could easily scuttle all other efforts to serve the commonwealth of the millions across both nations unless argument is conducted with broad scope.

Furthermore, the negotiations should take a long time and always move forward slowly. Fast-sweeping solutions will lead to middle-number system loss of predictability because, in the short run, low-level entities that ought to be considered trivial, would be able to have an effect. Quick fixes are vulnerable to fatal disruptions from any of a very large number of events: what a Senate committee chairman had for breakfast could make a difference.

RECOMMENDATION When in doubt as to the scope of a solution, the IJC should encourage involvement of the largest possible pertinent segment of the border, perhaps all of it. The more measured the pace of action, the better.

THE IRONY OF NOT COOPERATING

There are some happy twists of irony that come from the recommendation for slow deliberation. Here, we can recognize the surprising utility of political administrations, on either or both sides, dragging their feet. Peculiarly, the molluscan pace characteristic of large committees appears to be a plus in this situation. I am surprised

- 28 -

to find myself recommending the insertion of yet more bureaucratic levels, but I do. It does not matter so much why it takes an extended time to negotiate, for those reasons are only the means whereby the low-frequency behavior is achieved. What is crucial is that the building of recommendations does, for whatever reason, take a long time.

A long-term effort can build unstoppable inertia. Even major changes in administration after a landslide election could not dismantle the proposed legislation or other pivotal features of the solution -- so long as there is a large-enough superstructure defending the common good.

RECOMMENDATION Use any means to slow the process of negotiation.

On the face of it, the problem seems almost insurmountable. There is, however, some reason for us to hope that w e can find a solution. When one studies problems at the right (appropriate) scale, my experience is that solutions come easier than one expected at the outset. The results are achieved as something of a surprise, with the solution almost finding itself for you.

Most of the effort expended in getting a solution appears to be spent in bringing the right scale into play. This seems to be the case with the deposition problem, for the best large-scale monitoring effort is already focused on the transboundary region. This is no accident. Extensive ecological monitoring networks are expensive and demand a cohesive effort. The effort required appears to be too large-scale for the local forces inside just one nation.

Why (the underlying reason) the best monitoring program covers the area that it does is the presence of the international border itself. Being a scientific resource deployment problem and an ecological problem-preventer of international standing, monitoring of cross-border phenomena is husbanded by a body that is big enough for the job -- the joint interest of two nations. While inside a nation there is not enough cohesion to hold a large-scale monitoring program together, between two nations the spirit of international cooperation is large enough to rise above the squabbles within any one nation.

The encouraging thing in all this is the fact that the monitoring effort is focused on the transboundary region almost without our having tried to put it there in particular. There appear to be large-scale forces working for good at an international level. These forces seem to have an emergent autonomy -- a hidden hand that guides us to achieve things bigger than we might have reasonably expected, or perhaps, deserved.

If on top of this good fortune, we now focus on the large-scale problems consciously and conscientiously, w e might achieve even more: perhaps a workable solution to the deposition problem. It is certainly too early to be faint-hearted.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, T.F.H., R.V. O'Neill and T.W. Hoekstra, 1984. Interlevel relations in ecological research and management: some working principles from hierarchy theory. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-110, 11 pp. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Allen, T.F.H. and Thomas B. Starr, 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. 310 pp. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

- 29 -

Brown, M.T. and H.T. Odum, 1981. Research needs for a basic science of the system of humanity and nature and appropriate technology for the future. NSF/CEE 81090/Energy Analysis Workshop, Center for Wetlands, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. October, 1981.

Gilbertson, Michael, 1985. The Niagara labyrinth -- the ecology of producing organo- chlorine chemicals. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:1691-1692.

- 30 -

A P P E N D I C E S

A. Terms of Reference: Atmospheric Deposition Workshop Planning Committee

B. Membership List: Atmospheric Deposition Workshop Planning Committee

C. List of Participants

D. Members of Workgroups

- 31 -

A P P E N D I X A

ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION WORKSHOP PLANNING COMMITTEE

T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E

BACKGROUND

Both the SAB and the WQB are concerned about the significance of atmospheric deposition to the Great Lakes and have developed initiatives to investigate various aspects of the issue. In addition, the International Air Quality Advisory Board provides the Commission with information on the entire boundary region. Accordingly, the SAB/WQB have recommended that a Planning Committee be formed representing the three boards to develop a workshop to address the following:

O Monitoring 0 Loadings

O Transport 0 Sources

O Policy

Specific questions the Planning Committee may wish to address are:

consideration of the adequacy of existing programs to determine trends and estimates of atmospheric loadings of nutrients and contaminants to the Great Lakes and the current ability to relate to sources;

describe the current understanding in atmospheric monitoring as it relates to determination of net loadings of nutrients and contaminants to the Great Lakes;

propose a generic protocol for an atmospheric monitoring program that will include sampling criteria, locations, frequency, sampling devices, sampling storage, etc.;

identify the current state-of-the-art in understanding atmospheric processes and modeling, identify gaps in that knowledge and understanding, identify what research activities and requirements are necessary and should be recommended to f i l l these gaps;

examine the current understanding of exchange processes at the air/water interface;

examine long-range transport and its implications to controlling inputs to the Great Lakes;

examine current policy and legislation as it relates to atmospheric deposition to the Great Lakes; and

examine the existence and adequacy of current source/stack monitoring in Canada and the United States.

- 33 -

A P P E N D I X B

ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION WORKSHOP PLANNING COMMITTEE

M E M B E R S H I P L I S T

[IAQABI Dr. James W.S. Young (Co-Chairman) Air Quality and International

Environmental Research Laboratory Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario M3H ST4

[SABI Dr. Roderick J. Allan Environment Canada Lakes Research Branch, NWRI Canada Centre for Inland Waters P.O. Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

[WQBI Mr. E. Tony Wagner Inland Waters Directorate Environment Canada, Ontario Region Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

WQBI Mr. Peter L. Wise (Co-Chairman) Great Lakes National Program Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 536 South Clark Street Chicago, Illinois 60605

[IAQABI Dr. Lester Machta Environmental Research Laboratory National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration 8060 - 13th Street Silver Spring, Maryland 20910

[SAB, until August 19861 Dr. Ruth A. Reck General Motors Research Laboratory 30500 Mound Road Warren, Michigan 48090-9055

Secretariat Responsibilities

Dr. A.E.P. Watson, Research Scientist International Joint Commission

Great Lakes Regional Office 100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Floor

Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3

- 35 -

A P P E N D I X C

L I S T O F P A R T I C I P A N T S

ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION WORKSHOP

Dr. Roderick J . Allan Environment Canada Lakes Research Branch, NWRI Canada Centre for Inland Waters P.O. Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

Dr. Timothy F.H. Allen University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Botany 132 Birge Hall, 430 Lincoln Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Professor M. Alvo Department of Mathematics University of Ottawa 585 King Edward Ottawa, Ontario KIN 6N5

Dr. Anders W. Andren Water Chemistry Program University of Wisconsin 660 N. Park Street Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Dr. Richard Arimoto Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island Box 48, South Ferry Road Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882-1 197

Mr. Bruce L. Bandurski International Joint Commission 2001 S Street, N.W., 2nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20440

Dr. Len A. Barrie Atmospheric Environment Service Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4

Dr. Terry Bidleman Department of Chemistry University of South Carolina Columbia, South Carolina 29208

Commissioner L. Keith Bulen One Indiana Square, Suite 2050 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Dr. R.B. Caton Concord Scientific Corp. Environmental and

Occupational Contaminants 2 Tippett Road Downsview, Ontario M3H 2V2

Mr. C.H. Chan Water Quality Branch

Environment Canada, Ontario Region Canada Centre for Inland Waters P.O. Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

Dr. Brian J. Eadie Synthetic Organics and

GLERL/NOAA 2300 Washtenaw Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

Dr. Steven Eisenreich University of Minnesota Environmental Engineering Program 112 Mines and Metallurgy 221 Church Street S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

Dr. Sylvia Esterby Aquatic Ecology Division National Water Research Institute Canada Centre for Inland Waters P.O. Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

Inland Waters Directorate

Particle Dynamics Group

-37-

Dr. Sheldon K. Friedlander Chemical Engineering Department University of California Room 5531, Bolta Hall Los Angeles, California 90024

Mr. Michael Gilbertson Commerical Chemicals Environment Canada Place Vincent Massey Ottawa, Ontario KIA 1C8

Ms. Barbara Grogan Atmospheric Environment Service Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin Avenue Downsview, Ontario M3H ST4

Dr. Andrew L. Hamilton International Joint Commission 100 Metcalfe Street, 18th Floor Ottawa, Ontario KIP SM1

Mr. Bruce B. Hicks U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration Atmospheric Turbulence

and Diffusion Laboratory P.O. Box 2456 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831

Dr. Ronald Hites School of Public

Indiana University 400 E. Seventh Street Bloomington, Indiana 47405

and Environmental Affairs

Dr. Ray Hoff Atmospheric Dispersion Division Atmospheric Environment Service Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario M3H ST4

Mr. James W. Kramer Department of Geology McMaster University 280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M1

Dr. Douglas Lane Atmospheric Chemistry,

Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario M3H ST4

Criteria and Standards Division

Professor Peter S. Liss University of East Anglia School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Great Britain

Dr. Maris Lusis Ontario Ministry of Environment Air Resources Branch 880 Bay Street, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5S 128

Professor Donald MacKay Department of Chemical

University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4

Engineering and Applied Chemistry

Dr. T. Murphy Department of Chemistry DePaul University 25 E. Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dr. Barry G. Oliver Environmental Contaminants Division National Water Research Institute Canada Centre for Inland Waters P.O. Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

Dr. Maurice E.B. Owens Environmental Technology Group Science Applications

8400 Westpark Drive, Suite 548 McLean, Virginia 22102

International Corporation

Dr. James Pankow Department of Chemical, Biological and

Environmental Science Program Oregon Graduate Center Beaverton, Oregon 97006

-38-

Ms. Myrna Reid International Joint Commission Great Lakes Regional Office 100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Floor Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3

Dr. W. Schroeder Environment Canada Criteria and Standards Division,

Atmospheric Chemistry 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4

Mr. Lowell Smith Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 - M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460

Mr. Warren Stiver University of Toronto 200 College Street Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4

Dr. Pamela Stokes Institute for Environmental Studies University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4

Dr. W.M.J. Strachan National Water Research Institute Canada Centre for Inland Waters P.O. Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Road Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

Dr. Eva C. Voldner Environment Canada Atmospheric Environment Service 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4

Mr. E.T. Wagner Inland Waters Directorate Environment Canada, Ontario Region Box 5050, 867 Lakeshore Road, Room L128 Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6

Dr. Andrew E.P. Watson International Joint Commission Great Lakes Regional Office 100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Floor Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3

Commissioner Robert S.K. Welch P.O. Box 390, 72 Johnson Street Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario LOS 1JO

Dr. Marvin L. Wesely Atmospheric Physics Program Environmental Research Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue, Bldg. 181 Argonne, Illinois 60439

Mr. Wayne Willford Great Lakes National Program Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 536 South Clair Street Chicago, Illinois 60605

Mr. Peter L. Wise Great Lakes National Program Office U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 536 South Clair Street Chicago, Illinois 60605

Dr. James S. Young Atmospheric Environment Service Environment Canada 4905 Dufferin Street Downsview, Ontario M3H ST4

-39-

I

A P P E N D I X D

MEMBERS OF WORKGROUPS

M E T A L S W O R K G R O U P

W. Willford (Chairman) ....................................... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency R. Arimoto ......................................................................... University of Rhode Island L. Barrie .................................. Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service K. Bulen.. ............................................... Commissioner, International Joint Commission B. Hicks ............................................................ NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce J . Kramer .................................................................................... McMaster University

M. Owens ................................................................ Science Applications International W. Schroeder.. .......................... Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service P. Stokes .................................................................................... University of Toronto T. Wagner ............................................ Environment Canada, Inland Waters Directorate A. Watson ..................................................................... International Joint Commission

M. Lusis .............................. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Air Resources Branch

T O X I C O R G A N I C S W O R K G R O U P

P. Wise (Chairman) ........................................... ..U.S. Environmental Protection Agency R. Allan ........................................................ CCIW, National Water Research Institute M. Alvo ....................................................................................... University of Ottawa C. Chan ..................................................................... CCIW, Inland Waters Directorate B. Eadie. ................................ .NOAA, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory S. Eisenreich ........................................................................... University of Minnesota S. Friedlander .......................................................................... University of California R. Hites .......................................................................................... Indiana University R. Hoff.. .................................. Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service D. Lane. ................................... Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service D. Mackay.. ................................................................................ University of Toronto T. Murphy.. ...................................................................................... DePaul University B. Oliver ........................................................ CCIW, National Water Research Institute W. S tiver.. .................................................................................. University of Toronto M. Weseley. ..................................................................... Argonne National Laboratory

P E S T I C I D E S W O R K G R O U P

J . Young (Chairman) ................. Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service T. Allen. .................................................................................. University of Wisconsin A. Andren.. .............................................................................. University of Wisconsin B. Bandurski.. ............................................................... International Joint Commission T. Bidleman ..................................................................... University of South Carolina R. Caton.. .................................................................... Concord Scientific Corporation S. Esterby ..................................................... CCIW, National Water Research Institute M. Gilbertson. ............................ Environment Canada, Commercial Chemicals Division A. Hamilton ................................................................ International Joint Commission P. Liss ................................................................................ University of East Anglia J . Pankow ............................................................................. Oregon Graduate Center L. Smith ........................................................... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency W. Strachan .................................................. CCIW, National Water Research Institute E. Voldner.. .............................. Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service R. Welch ................................................ Commissioner, International Joint Commission

- 41 -