Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

GLBTS Links

______________________

Dioxin / Furans

Stakeholders Minutes - February 6, 2001
Workgroup Teleconference Minutes

Workgroup Leaders:
Anita Wong, EC
Nan Gowda, EPA

Facilitator:
John Menkedick, Battelle

Introduction

The objectives for the day were to review plans for implementing reduction and/or information gathering projects for those sectors designated high or medium priority in the decision tree process, discuss open action items, give updates from subgroups, and consider next steps.

Materials distributed to workgroup members prior to the teleconference included:

The teleconference agenda
Minutes from the November stakeholders meeting
A draft "Strategy for Reducing the Prevalence of Barrel Burning in Rural Areas of the Great Lakes" from the open burning subgroup

John Menkedick (Battelle) briefly reviewed what was discussed at the dioxin breakout sessions of the November stakeholder meeting:

Updates were given on the Canadian Inventory, the U.S. Dioxin Reassessment, and the GLBTS Dioxin Step reports
Discussion focused on open burning and PCP treated wood
Time ran out at the stakeholders meeting before the agenda items on ash disposal, landfill fires, incineration, and base metals could be discussed

The group was referred to the distributed minutes for more detail.

Nan Gowda (USEPA) announced that the comment period for the U.S. GLBTS Step 3 report for external review, “PCDD (Dioxins) and PCDF (Furans): Reduction Options”, had ended on November 13, 2000, and that several sets of comments had been received.

Many of the comments were regarding PCP treated wood (e.g., emissions and waste classification as non-hazardous)
Comments also included some corrections and requests to update the references to the U.S. Dioxin Inventory to reflect recent revisions

A question was asked regarding the process for revising the GLBTS step reports.

Nan responded that the Step 3 report would be updated, but not until U.S. Dioxin Inventory estimates have been finalized
Nan said that he would distribute comments that could be resolved at this time (i.e., before the final inventory is released) via email to the workgroup so that they could be discussed at the next conference call (or, he added, people could also send responses to him via email)

Anita Wong (EC) reported that the Canadian Dioxin Inventory had not been finalized yet, and that the draft version was still posted on the Environment Canada / Greenlane website. At this time, EC is in the process of reviewing comments on the draft inventory.

Dwain Winters (USEPA) reported that the draft U.S. Dioxin Reassessment was also still under review by the Science Advisory Board (SAB). In a November meeting with the SAB, issues and tasks that will need to be addressed before a final version can be released were identified, and follow-up conference calls were planned. The current tentative plan was to take the inventory to the SAB executive committee in April, and possibly have the final inventory ready, at the earliest, sometime in May 2001.

Next the workgroup moved on to progress updates on subgroups, action items, and information gathering efforts.

Workgroup Progress Updates

Backyard Trash / Open Burning Subgroup

Bruce Gillies (EC), who currently coordinates the open burning subgroup, introduced the draft "Strategy for Reducing the Prevalence of Barrel Burning in Rural Areas of the Great Lakes".

The subgroup had prepared this first draft over the past several months, and was now looking for feedback and comments to help them in their revision process
The goal was to develop a more mature strategy for presentation to the Integration group
For the upcoming February Integration Group meeting, a status update only would be given.
Bruce noted that in addition to giving verbal comments today, people were also welcome to send him comments later via email.

Bruce briefly summarized the contents of the draft strategy to date, including sections on the background of the problem, goals and main elements of the strategy, a generic implementation plan, a description of the role of the subgroup, and a list of links to relevant information.

Regarding the background section, Bruce noted that they would like to expand this section to include recognition of exposure pathways and clarification that commercial agricultural waste (e.g. packaging) would be included under the strategy (but not agricultural stubble burning).

Dwain Winters commented that the subgroup had made significant progress on the strategy, and that it was well on its way to a mature strategy.

Questions were asked regarding the exposure pathways discussion, and how beef and dairy food chain exposure should be characterized in the strategy.

Dwain explained that although this pathway (air deposition to feed to cow) is well accepted, a quantitative estimate of the magnitude of this pathway (relative to other exposure pathways) has not been established.
The group noted that it should be explained in the strategy that open burning is only one contributor to the levels of dioxins in air and the general air deposition pathway. The primary risk from open burning is not from inhalation exposure to dioxins from a neighbor’s fire, but rather from the general contribution to environmental loadings from open burning.
Bruce said that this section of the strategy discussion would be expanded.

Dwain made a few suggestions regarding the second bullet under the background section:

He noted that the 25 percent figure (for the relative contribution of burn barrel emissions to total annual releases of dioxins) was from 1995
As the magnitude of the emissions from other sources decrease (i.e. with better controls), the significance of open barrel burning will increase (i.e., it will be the largest quantifiable source)
Additionally, Dwain noted that the proximity of much of the barrel burning to livestock feed sources (i.e., barrel burning of trash most often occurs in rural areas) may make this source even more relevant in terms of an exposure/risk perspective.

It was asked whether the significance of open burning was known in the Canadian Emissions Inventory.

Bruce responded that the estimates were very rough now, but that an inventory plan was being developed in Ontario to improve the estimates.
It was noted that the benzo(a)pyrene and hexachlorobenzene BTS workgroups may also be interested in coordinating on an effort to improve open burning emissions estimates in Canada, and that this would be a good issue to raise at the Integration Group meeting.

Dwain noted that the suggestion in the strategy that children are more susceptible to dioxin/furan exposure may be difficult to explain here fully and accurately, and suggested that the point be limited to making the case that dioxins are a potential health risk for all.

General comments were made on the strategy, including:

that the strategy seemed to have a bias towards education throughout the document (and that although this aspect was extremely important, most discussion of education could be effectively communicated in the education section of the strategy)
that the strategy was laid out very well, but that some questions did arise in the implementation section (e.g., details on who would implement, how, the level of effort required, etc.)

Bruce informed the group that the current goal was to circulate a mature draft burn barrel strategy to the Integration Group in May. The objectives in taking the strategy to the Integration Group were to:

inform them of the direction the burn barrel subgroup was taking
to receive suggestion on the strategy
to identify opportunities for coordination with other BTS workgroups
to alert the integration group of future funding needs

It was also noted that when it is released to larger audiences, such as politicians, it will be important that the strategy has backing and open burning reduction is supported as an important issue.

It was added that the issue of open burning is not restricted to the Great Lakes regions -- it is an important issue in rural areas nationwide.

The workgroup discussed the dynamics of Great Lakes regional efforts and nationwide efforts
Dwain noted that issues such as these would be addressed for the U.S. in the National Dioxin Strategy

The emphasis of the education language in the strategy was discussed:

It was suggested that in addition to striving to educate the public, the strategy should include more on education of public officials

Other issues discussed included:

The placement of the incentives section (a subsection of "infrastructure" or equal with other sections in 3)
The possibility of adding more details in the infrastructure section
Rewording "reasonable alternatives"
Overcoming threshold resistance
Stronger emphasis on rewards under the education section

Several comments were made regarding the goals section:

The wording of the parenthetical on the first bullet, " with the eventual goal of eliminating the practice entirely" was discussed. It was noted that this goal was consistent with the virtual elimination goals of the BTS, however, it was asked whether this goal was practical or achievable. It was suggested that the statement in the first bullet be limited to specifically the routine burning of waste.
In the second bullet, the statement, "so they can serve as models for other jurisdictions", was noted to be of possible concern and agreed to be cut

Bruce noted that all the comments received were very helpful, and said that he would bring up these issues at the next subgroup conference call and that they would revise the plan accordingly. The next open barrel burning subgroup meeting was scheduled for February 13th. Comments would be discussed and plans would be made for the Integration Group presentation.

The current plan for the presentation was to show overheads and give a supporting handout, with a focus on the first four pages of the existing strategy which characterize the nature and extent of the problem and outline the strategy goals
It was suggested that although the details aren't sorted out yet, they may also want to consider pulling together a slide showing key players and potential roles to solicit some preliminary Integration Group feedback

Clarification was requested regarding the reduction tracking section:

Sandro Leonardelli (EC) explained that various measures could be considered to assess whether less garbage was being burned over time (e.g. landfill usage, garbage hauling rates, direct tracking of burning rates)
The workgroup thought that the last two examples had potential as good measures, but that garbage hauling rates would need to be corrected for community growth
It was noted that a positive aspect of open burning reduction efforts was that it was possible to measure progress over time, in contrast to some of the other toxics reduction efforts, which are even more difficult to track.

Action Item Updates

Pentachlorophenol-treated Wood

Anita Wong gave the workgroup an update on the Canadian Wood Preservation Strategic Options Process (SOP):

For wood treaters, as called for in the assessment, work is currently underway to develop an informational website by the end of March 2001, and an action plan by the end of July 2001.
A waste management strategy for treated wood has been drafted and is currently under review
For treated wood users, a guidance document is near completion
A brief presentation on the Life Cycle Analysis methodology will be given by the LCA committee chair, Terry Mah, at the dioxin workgroup meeting in May.

Herb Estreicher noted that assessments had been completed for all 64 wood treatment facilities in Canada and that action plans are currently being developed based on these assessments.

Jim Roewer (USWAG) provided an update on the USWAG survey of member utilities on the fate of PCP-treated utility poles:

The survey was currently in the process of being revised
Complications in the interpretation of the data had arisen due to difficulty in separating information on the different types of treated wood (i.e., creosote, CCA, and penta-treated). Preliminary results, however, seemed to show insignificant differences.

Other preliminary findings were that:

Re-use of treated wood is common (with about 57 percent sold to the public, 27 percent going to landfills, and the remaining being re-used by utilities and others for fuel recovery)
When poles are distributed for re-use, notification is occurring
Jim noted that he hoped to be able to present more final results to the workgroup in May.

Jim reported that USWAG is also currently in the process of developing a best management practices strategy document, and expect to have a draft document by May.

Discussion turned to planning of the May 17th Stakeholder meeting in Toronto

May Stakeholder Meeting Planning

For the May meeting, priority discussion topics were identified and the schedule discussed:

The Canadian SOP process and the USWAG activities would likely be a significant agenda item, needing at least an hour
Follow-up on the open barrel burning subgroup and strategy development would be needed, and also could take up to an hour

The workgroup members present agreed that a longer time slot for the dioxin breakout session was definitely needed, however, lengthening the session may pose a problem for those who also participated in the overlapping HCB breakout session

It was suggested that the morning integration session be pared back to make more time for the workgroup sessions
It was suggested that a working lunch would gain them ½ hour

The possibility of discussing some of the topics at the plenary session was considered.

Presentation of the burn barrel strategy at the plenary session was identified as being appropriate
The following agenda was proposed for the May meeting:
Follow-up on the burn barrel presentation from the plenary session
Presentation and discussion of PCP treated wood related activities
A short discussion of information gathered on ash disposal and landfill fires, and decision on whether more investigation is needed
A short update on steel manufacturing

Action Item Updates

With the remaining time, Nan Gowda provided the group with an update on information he had gathered regarding incineration ash management in the U.S. (New information from New York and Pennsylvania):

Generally, ash was tested to determine if it was hazardous (e.g. based on heavy metals), but it was not specifically tested for dioxins or furans
If designated as hazardous, ash was sent to a monofill
Ash could be used for other purposes, but a permit is required

Dwain Winters noted that leaching is not a problem at monofills (i.e., there is fairly high confidence in the immobility of dioxins under these conditions) or properly engineered landfills (e.g., liners are required at mixed solid waste landfills).

Theoretically, however, organic solvents present in mixed waste landfills could promote leaching of dioxins/furans
Although landfill leachate is not tested for dioxins specifically, if there are no organic chemicals/solvents present in the leachate, dioxin leaching is probably not a problem either.

Nan also reported to the group that, regarding landfill fires, both New York and Pennsylvania required reporting of fires to state authorities. New York reported 2 or 3 landfill fires occurred in 2000, and Pennsylvania reported no significant fires.

Next Steps

The group tentatively planned an add-on conference call before the May stakeholders meeting for either April 3rd or May 1st. Details are to be provided at a later date.

The Spring 2001 Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Stakeholders' Forum will take place on May 17th in Toronto

Participant Roster

Herb Estreicher, Covington & Burling
Bruce Gillies, Environment Canada
Nan Gowda, USEPA Region 5
Greg Hammond, Environment Canada
Tom Hornshaw, Illinois EPA
Mark Johnson, Weyerhaeuser
Jeffrey Lynn, International Paper
John Menkedick, Battelle
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
E. Marie Phillips, USEPA
Daryl Piekarz, Environment Canada
Jim Roewer, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Dwain Winters, USEPA
Anita Wong, Environment Canada
Maureen Wooton, Battelle

Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

GLBTS Links

Dioxin / Furans

Stakeholders Minutes - February 6, 2001 Workgroup Teleconference Minutes

Introduction

Workgroup Progress Updates

Action Item Updates

Action Item Updates

Next Steps

Participant Roster

Local Navigation

Stakeholders Minutes - February 6, 2001
Workgroup Teleconference Minutes