Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

GLBTS Links

______________________

Dioxin / Furans

Stakeholders Minutes - January 9, 2002
Workgroup Teleconference Minutes

Workgroup Leaders:
Anita Wong, EC
Nan Gowda, EPA
Erin White, EPA

Introduction

Nan Gowda (EPA) welcomed the group and announced that Erin White, who works in EPA’s Region 5 Air Division, will be replacing him as the dioxin workgroup U.S. co-leader. Nan said that he will still be participating as a workgroup member. Anita Wong (EC) reviewed the meeting agenda: the primary focus of the meeting would be discussion of pentachlorophenol (PCP)-treated wood, including the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) utility pole disposal survey results and next steps. She commended USWAG for their recent efforts, which have helped to move the issue forward.

Materials distributed prior to meeting included an agenda, minutes from the November 14th Dioxin Workgroup breakout session of the Fall Stakeholders meeting in Chicago, a copy of the Treated Wood Use and Management presentation by Jim Roewer (USWAG) at the November 14 meeting, and a summary letter on Treated Wood Achievements and the USWAG Treated Wood Guidelines.

Pentachlorophenol-Treated Wood

Dwain Winters (EPA) provided an update on the PCP treated wood issue in the U.S. He noted that the workgroup’s decision tree process was working as intended – as a result of the information need identified by the workgroup, USWAG had stepped forward to gather more information on PCP-treated utility pole disposal. Dwain proposed that, in light of the information gathered in the USWAG survey, as well as USWAG’s technical review of disposal options and development of a management plan, the initial information need identified by the workgroup might become a low priority. He also felt that future efforts would be best focused on analysis of the management plan.

Dwain suggested that the workgroup leaders draft a memo to express their thanks to all those (USWAG and the individual companies) who helped with the information gathering, and to inform them that the information gathering efforts on PCP would be changed from a medium priority (U.S.) to a low priority and that consideration would now be given to the management plan.

It was noted that the U.S. seems to be at the same point as Canada (which also has a low priority on PCP issues due to existing efforts in place) in terms of looking at management options and trying to finalize guidelines, so this proposition seemed reasonable. To examine this further, discussion turned to PCP-treated utility pole issues in Canada.

Shawn Michajluk (EC) and Curtis Englot (EC) presented an overview of progress to date in addressing PCP-treated utility poles in Canada through the Canada-Wide Standards (CWS) and Strategic Options Process (SOP):

The results of a third party assessment showed that all PCP wood treatment facilities were meeting the technical recommendations from the SOP and had submitted implementation plans for utility poles by the end of 2001.
A guidance document has been drafted for wood users, and a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) document has also been drafted to help facilities assess the need for treated wood use
The Storage Facilities guidelines (2001 draft) on treated wood use specifications for utility storage yards will be shared with U.S. west coast facilities for the development of Best Management Practices.
It was noted that the USWAG guidelines and Canadian SOP both address all types of treated wood (not just PCP-treated wood), and that the LCA document largely looks at alternatives and impacts.
A National Strategy for the management of post-use treated wood was drafted 3/23/01. This document presents guidelines for industrial treated wood and will be publicly available on the Internet, possibly by the end of this year.

It was noted that the Canadian and USWAG draft treated wood users guidelines are very similar to each other.

Dwain suggested that two main questions should be addressed in a guidance document regarding secondary uses:

How do we judge the effectiveness of a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) (or equivalent) in affecting disposal and end use once poles go to a secondary user, and,
Should the management guidelines call for the exclusion of certain kinds of secondary uses (for example, use in agricultural settings (where they may be in contact with feed or livestock), and uses where children could come in contact with the PCP-treated wood, such as playgrounds).

Other important questions include how to evaluate which secondary uses should be excluded, and how violators would be found if any exclusions were applied.

Jim Roewer (USWAG) noted that many users are now already becoming more discriminating in who they distribute poles to and for what purposes, but it is an evolving educational process. secondary use limitation agreements could be a condition of sale (e.g., through a sales contract). Jim responded that inappropriate uses are already an element of information provided to secondary users.

The group discussed recommended avoidances for secondary use(s): firewood, burning in open dumps, and use in food preparation areas. Herb Estreicher (Covington & Burling) noted that a draft list of about 15 recommended secondary use restrictions were included in a previous guidance document developed by the EPA and the American Wood Preservers Association (AWPA). He noted that, in addition to use as utility poles, other exterior wood uses of PCP are approved as long as the wood doesn’t come into contact with humans or animals.

Approximately 95% of PCP is used in utility poles, and the rest in marine pilings, fence posts, etc. Herb noted that, from 1989-1997, the proceedings on treated wood resulted in effective limitations on use (e.g., no longer used in agriculture), reductions in contaminants, and a revision to MSDS information. However, these restrictions do not apply to secondary uses because FIFRA only has direct jurisdiction over use application/products made by wood treaters. Once they move to the secondary use market, FIFRA no longer applies – this led to the development of the voluntary guidance document for secondary use.

It was asked if there was some kind of regulatory “punch” that could be added to secondary use restrictions.

It was noted that there is no regulatory authority to issue requirements.
Disposal is controlled by RCRA, but secondary uses are not waste yet. The group discussed how much resale could be controlled by the producer/seller, or whether a broker should be involved.
It was noted that sale for secondary use has always been viewed as a life cycle product liability management issue by those in the treated wood industry. While the programs are not under direct federal regulatory control, they are under controls governing common law responsibility (e.g., when distributing products in commerce, do so in a responsible fashion). Product responsibility covers a wide range of issues, such as ensuring structural integrity or that products are used for the right purposes.
It was noted that the situation in Canada also involves product stewardship issues and that industry is committed to the appropriate management of poles.

Anita asked if there were more opportunities for utilities to reuse poles. Jim responded that yes, some do remain in the system, and the USWAG management plan encourages their reuse (because poles are expensive).

The group continued discussion on why poles enter the secondary use market and other secondary use concerns. Comments and discussion touched on the following issues:

It was noted that there is a big effort among utilities to “maintain poles,” (e.g., to treat a pole at the groundline until it fails).
Reasons poles enter the secondary market are that they no longer meet structural integrity requirements and proximity issues. There is also public demand for them.
How well secondary users follow the warning on poles is an education issue that may not be specific to poles (i.e., how well do consumers follow any product warnings?).
It was suggested that there are issues unique to utility poles because poles have secondary uses that may be decades long. How will product warnings be passed on over the course of 10-30 years? Furthermore, assuming recommended use restrictions are respected, how can we ensure end disposal is occurring in a safe manner.

Finding out the effectiveness of secondary use restrictions was cited as an important question. It was noted that the impact of the MSDS may differ depending on the purchaser (e.g., private consumer vs. major company). Ways to more objectively answer questions of effectiveness of the MSDS were discussed.

Questions were asked on whether there is way to determine how effective the use restrictions are, and if the content of the MSDS is sufficient.
The question of whether the use of poles constitutes a high, medium, or low concern was discussed. Dwain suggested that the information need right now is low, but judgement should be deferred until the effectiveness of the management guideline proposal is determined. He also suggested that we revisit the ranking for disposal practices. He stated that currently 50% or more of poles are in secondary use; the question is whether the proposals meet the concern.
A question was asked regarding recent dioxin science and implications for the use guidelines. It was noted that the initial list of use restrictions was drafted with a focus on certain dioxins.
The need for public education or post-MSDS activities directed at secondary purchasers to help ensure proper secondary use was discussed. It was noted that over the long time period involved, the MSDS approach may need to be augmented, possibly using a public education campaign. These issues need to be taken back to USWAG to see if they have already been considered, or if there is a plan in place to find out the answers.

Discussion continued on the topic of determining how effective the management plan will be. It was suggested that front end analysis could be conducted to determine confidence in the plan.

The group agreed that, based on the today’s discussion, Battelle would draft a list of questions on secondary use of PCP poles and forward them to Dwain to review. Jim Roewer noted that USWAG will also begin the process of asking these questions (among its members) in the coming week. The questions will be distributed to the workgroup for the next discussion of the PCP treated wood issue at the May Stakeholder Forum.

Other Action Item Updates

Open Burning Subgroup

The open burning subgroup is working on developing a website to be used by localities as an information resource. They hope to include information and tracking of regulatory / legislative developments in different states and localities. They are currently investigating funding support.

Dwain suggested the Dioxin/Furan workgroup make a recommendation to EPA and EC that the funding is a need.

MWC and MWI Ash Management

Dale suggested that another call should be scheduled with a focus on incinerator ash management made because there might be others who wish to participate. He also stated that a list of questions outlining the primary issues might be helpful, especially for soliciting additional information from industries.

Dwain suggested that some pertinent questions might include:

Is any new data available on the concentration of dioxin/furans in ash?
What are the ash concentrations pre and post MACT?
Any new data on ash management practices (e.g., volumes or masses of ash being managed; distribution to monofills, incorporation into products, etc.)?

It was added that because, in the U.S., ash disposal in landfills is not considered a release into the environment (i.e., with reporting requirements), it is unknown in many cases whether measurements of dioxins in ash have been made.

Anita noted that updated information from Canada is also needed. Previously, no testing was required in Canada but the regulations changed last year – we need to check on the availability of any new data resulting from the new testing requirements.

Hospital incinerators releases were discussed briefly. Concentrations have been monitored in incinerators and they were found to be high, but since the flow rates were low, this resulted in no significant releases of dioxin. In addition ambient air was monitored, and they showed elevated levels in urban vs. rural, but these were lower than the Ontario Government standards. Anita noted that Ontario recently announced its intention to eventually phase out all medical waste incinerators.

It was agreed that based on today’s discussion, Battelle would draft a list of ash management questions for review. Dale agreed to get the ash questions out to his incinerator contacts. He also noted that he needed to find contacts in the Midwest. It was suggested that he start with Minnesota, because they do ash testing. Another contact mentioned was EPA Office of Solid Waste. Dwain also agreed to report back to the group on the dioxin/furan inventory data that is relevant.

Secondary Copper

Dale recognized that there were still questions pending about secondary copper. Anita noted that results from the Canadian voluntary stack tests and ambient monitoring – all to be presented at the May meeting – may help in answering some of these questions.

Action Items

Battelle / Dwain -- Draft a list of questions on secondary use and disposal of PCP poles for the agenda for May
Workgroup leaders - Prepare a letter to USWAG and the other companies participating in the USWAG survey
Update the GLBTS status report to reflect today’s discussion on PCP issues
Battelle – draft a list of ash management questions for review. Dale – distribute the ash questions out to his incinerator contacts.
Recruit experts on ash management for the next workgroup conference call.
Dwain – report back to the workgroup on any dioxin/furan inventory data relevant to ash management issues.
Joe Stepun – provide workgroup the AMSA web site link to their sludge report.

Next Meeting

The next meeting was tentatively set for April 2nd, at 2 pm EST (1 pm CST), but if not enough information can be gathered, the meeting may be postponed until May. The next meeting will focus on ash management.

Participant Roster

Keith Christman, Chlorine Chemistry Council
Curtis Englot, Environment Canada
Herbert Estreicher, Covington & Burlington
Nan Gowda, USEPA, Region 5
Douglas Green, Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe LLP / Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Dan Hopkins, USEPA, Region 5
John Menkedick, Battelle
Shawn Michajluk, Environment Canada
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Dick Fillman, Bethlehem Steel
Jim Roewer, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Joe Stearns, Chlorine Chemistry Council
Joe Stepun, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Erin White, USEPA, Region 5
Dwain Winters, USEPA, OPPT
Anita Wong, Environment Canada
Maureen Wooton, Battelle