Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

GLBTS Links

______________________

Dioxin / Furans

Stakeholders Minutes - June 1, 1999
Workgroup Teleconference Minutes

Workgroup Leaders:
Nan Gowda, USEPA Region V
Sandro Leonardelli Environment Canada, Ontario Region

Facilitator:
John Menkedick, Battelle

Status Updates, Introductory Remarks, and Discussion

Concern was expressed regarding equal opportunity for all groups to have representation at meetings (in particular the upcoming MWC/MWI call). It was suggested that if a particular workgroup member was unable to participate in a meeting, but had strong interest, they would be more than welcome to send another representative in their place.

Sandro Leonardelli (EC) and Nan Gowda (USEPA) presented a review of the 4-Step Process for BNS workgroup action as specified in the Strategy. They discussed the past focus, and potential areas for future focus, of the group within the 4-Step Process context.

In the past, the group has focused primarily on Step 1 (baseline information collection, information exchange). For example, the Canadian Inventory is complete, and the U.S. inventory is approximately 95% complete.
In order to move ahead workgroup leads suggested that, the group focus more on Step 2 (evaluating effectiveness of existing regulatory and programmatic control) and Step 3 (identifying sources / opportunities / strategies for additional control). In particular, the group needs to identify where they can make the biggest impacts.
1. This may involve the development of a regulatory/program matrix for dioxins to aid in identification of regulatory gaps. The group may ultimately be able to have the most significant impact in areas or for sectors that are otherwise not addressed by legislation or programs.
2. In addition, the group may need to look at the universe of dioxin sources and sectors, and categorize and target them based on potential for impact. John Menkedick (Battelle) reviewed the Quadrant approach (developed in the GLNPO Lakewide Management Plans) as a potential method for prioritizing sectors for action. This approach is based on targeting sources/sectors based on magnitude, as well as feasibility and ease of reduction efforts. A comment was made that the group should also keep in mind the 75/90% quantitative challenge goals within this context.

Werner Braun (CGLI) announced a CGLI report on a method for targeting sources for reduction. Discussion then turned to consideration of specific sectors (identified at the last meeting) and opportunities for action.

Source/Sector Discussion and Opportunities for Action

John Menkedick pointed out that, of the sources listed on the agenda (i.e. cement kilns, diesel fuel combustion, utility coal, landfill fires, and backyard trash burning ), all were estimated to contribute 5% or less of the dioxin releases in the Canadian Inventory except backyard trash burning. In the draft U.S. inventory, although only order of magnitude estimates were available, backyard trash burning was also considered to be a significant dioxin source. Teepee burning accounted for 37% of the dioxin emissions in the Canadian Inventory.

Open Barrel Trash Burning

Dwain Winters (USEPA) provided the group with details on the status of U.S. data regarding dioxin emissions and backyard trash burning.

In general, the available data is insufficient to generate quantitative estimates of dioxin emissions/emission factors. There is relatively little emission factor data, and experimental field trials show a high degree of variability (by a factor of 10) in quantities of dioxins generated under different burning conditions (e.g. faster versus slower burns), and with the burning of different materials.
The trial burns do provide sufficient evidence for EPA to be highly confident that uncontrolled trash burning has the potential to be significant source of dioxin, although quantitative estimates are not yet available.
In addition, estimates of the prevalence of backyard trash burning have not been made with confidence.

Sandro Leonardelli brought up the similar issue of “teepee burning” in Canada, which is characterized by low-tech, municipal scale, uncontrolled burning of waste in areas without landfill capability (e.g., Newfoundland).

Dwain Winters summarized that there are generally two main questions/unknowns in determining dioxin emissions from open barrel trash burning:

Prevalence and distribution of the practice
Emission factors / variables that drive dioxin emission levels (e.g., burning practice, type of trash)

John Menkedick recalled that Stephane Gingras (GLU) had previously volunteered to investigate / summarize regulations and current programs directed at open barrel burning (as well as residential wood combustion).

Joe Stepun (WLSSD) cited work being done in his district (working with the solid waste districts) to investigate burn barrels (emission factors and prevalence). Materials on this report will be distributed to the group (See Action Item below).

He noted that they also observed highly variable emissions, that were on the order of 20 times higher than the fluidized bed process.
Joe suggested that although changing the cultural practices underlying open barrel burning may be difficult, much could be done to control this source in general by just changing behavior and excluding some materials burned.

Dwain Winters explained that the presence of chlorinated materials in waste is not the biggest issue in dioxin formation; the completeness of the combustion process is more important (i.e. incomplete combustion creates more dioxins). With open barrel burning, there is both incomplete combustion and de novo synthesis occurring, therefore, it may not be an easy source to target.

Discussion followed regarding the general significance and feasibility of targeting open barrel burning for dioxin reduction efforts. Eventually the group agreed that current information did satisfactorily indicate that open barrel burning was a potentially big enough source (and one that is largely currently unregulated), and that there may substantial opportunity for achieving results.

A subgroup volunteered to draft an informational pamphlet on open burning (public education materials with alternatives) as a straw man to generate discussion of specific issues for the group. Sandro Leonardelli, Joe Stepun, Werner Braun and Jackie Hunt-Christensen (via Joe Stepun) volunteered for this activity (See Action Item below).
Another subgroup volunteered to begin assembling information on prevalence and factors affecting the extent of barrel burning. Joe Stepun, Tom Hornshaw, and George Kuper (via Werner Braun) volunteered for this subgroup (See Action Item below).

Dwain Winters suggested that:

alternatives to backyard trash burning should be identified if we are to engage in a campaign to discourage this activity.
we understand why people engage in backyard burning where alternatives do exist.

Dwain Winters provided some ideas on how to quantify the prevalence of backyard burning (e.g. possibly by comparing per capita waste generation in rural areas versus the quantity of waste that is disposed to landfill or other municipal collection). He also posed some open questions on how to develop alternatives to burning (e.g. identifying the infrastructure necessary for a municipal collection program; putting initial focus on rural areas that have a relatively dense population since the feasibility of alternatives increases with population).

Agricultural / Regional Burning

It was noted that restrictions on agricultural burning are not supported by any current legislation, and are considered a separate category from open barrel burning.

John Menkedick and Dan Hopkins committed to informing the BNS pesticides workgroup about this issue
Jackie Hunt-Christensen (IATP) volunteered to work with the rural population on this issue. (Also Tom Hornshaw will check with the public relations department) (See Action Item below).

Synthesis

Discussion then turned to a more general, ideological review of the Quadrant approach and how it synchronizes with regulations. The question was asked as to whether the group should be targeting all currently unregulated sources. For example, should the group also be targeting wood burning stoves. The comment was made that in the case of wood stoves, we were failing to provide people with good alternatives.

The point was made that often (as is the case with much backyard trash burning) alternatives do exist. However, other factors, such as social acceptability and geographical area (rural vs. suburban) also come into play.

Werner Braun noted that CGLI affiliates include over 200 companies, and that the group may want to consider using this resource to outreach to the public.

It was suggested that the greatest potential for significant reduction resided with unregulated sources, and that research into regional practices was also needed.

Other Sectors

During the remainder of the meeting, the group discussed cement kilns, diesel engines, utility coal, landfill fires, and PCP treated wood. Dwain Winters gave a brief overview of the magnitude of emissions and status of data collection efforts for each category.

Large airports, rendering plants, and agricultural chemical facilities (land spreading) were also brought up as potential sectors for future investigation.

After discussion of prioritization and interest, the group decided that topics for future calls may be diesel fuel and PCP treated wood.

Diesel Fuel

Particular interest was expressed in resolving data gaps for this sector, especially marine diesel sources.

PCP Treated Wood

Dwain Winters agreed to formulate options for workgroup activities to investigate disposal practices for PCP treated telephone poles (especially older poles with lower-chlorinated congeners) (See Action Item below)

Action Items & Next Steps

Draft & post minutes from June 1 conference call
Collect and distribute materials (via email) from Werner Braun on CGLI proposed process for targeting sources. Werner also volunteered to present this process, which was originally developed for OCS, but also may be applicable to dioxin reductions, on a subsequent call.
Distribute materials from Joe Stepun on open burning source estimates in LS basin
Draft outreach materials / informational pamphlet on open barrel burning, including alternatives and regional approaches (J. Hunt-Christensen, S. Leonardelli, W. Braun, J. Stepun), and options for working with rural populations on open agricultural burning (J. Hunt-Christensen, T. Hornshaw)
Investigate /gather information on prevalence of open burning (J. Stepun, T. Hornshaw, George Kuper (via Werner Braun), Wisconsin DNR?)
Present options for PCP treated utility poles inquiry (D. Winters)
Werner Braun was to contact Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) for information related to rural waste disposal.

The next regular monthly conference call (to discuss municipal waste and medical waste incineration) will be on July 6th at 10:00 am EST (9:00 am CDT). The agendas for the call will be posted on the web site one week before the call.

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m. EDT.

Participant Roster

Werner Braun, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Hugh Eisler, Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Committee
John Estenik, Ohio EPA
Herb Estreicher, Covington & Burling
Dave Goldsmith, Georgia Gulf
Nan Gowda, U.S. EPA Region 5
Dan Hopkins, U.S. EPA Region 5
Tom Hornshaw, Illinois EPA
Jackie Hunt-Christensen, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Robert Hyde,
Ross Kent, Stelco
Sandro Leonardelli, Environment Canada - Ontario Region
Jeffrey Lynn, International Paper
John Menkedick, Battelle
Joe Stepun, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Guy Williams, National Wildlife Federation
Dwain Winters, U.S. EPA Headquarters
Maureen Wooton, Battelle