Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

GLBTS Links

______________________

Dioxin / Furans

Stakeholders Minutes - May 16, 2000
Workgroup Meeting Minutes

Workgroup Leaders:
Sandro Leonardelli, EC
Anita Wong, EC
Nan Gowda, EPA

Facilitator:
John Menkedick, Battelle

Introduction

The objectives for the day were to 1) review and finalize evaluation of the major dioxin/furan sectors in the Great Lakes basin through the decision tree process, and 2) discuss next steps for the BNS dioxin/furan workgroup. Specifically, for the decision tree process, the goal was to revisit the tentative priority designation for municipal waste combustion (MWC) and medical waste incineration (MWI) and to reach closure on designations for all analyzed sectors. The primary focus for the next steps discussion was to develop plans for implementing reduction and/or information gathering projects for sectors designated high or medium priority, address outstanding action items, and discuss process changes for future workgroup activities.

Materials distributed to workgroup members prior to the meeting included: the meeting agenda, an updated overview of Decision Tree Analysis outcomes for targeted sources of dioxins/furans in the Great Lakes Basin (updated 5/2/00), and an updated Action Items list.

Sandro Leonardelli (EC) announced that Anita Wong (EC) would officially be resuming the Environment Canada colead position and that in the future, he would be primarily focusing his energies towards the open burning subgroup.

Sandro introduced a proposal (to be discussed more fully later in the meeting) for having regular workgroup teleconferences less frequently than once a month, possibly either bi-monthly or once a quarter. Sandro also issued a statement that the workgroup needed the participation and help of the NGOs to be successful.

Sector Specific Analysis: Finalizing the Decision Tree Process

Priority rankings, resulting from the past year's teleconferences, were reviewed for all sectors (i.e. sectors that met the original workgroup criteria for inclusion in the decision tree process). It was noted that only MWC and MWI had not received a final priority designation. Questions and comments were solicited on any of the final designations before moving into a discussion of MWC and MWI.

Discussion of Sectors with a Final Priority Designation

Stephane Gingras (GLU) asked for more details on how the iron sintering sector had been designated a low BNS priority.

It was noted that a sector could be designated as low BNS priority for workgroup purposes on the basis of either a) minimal emissions or b) minimal reduction opportunities for the BNS.
In the case of iron sintering, the low BNS priority designation from the US perspective was a result of consideration of new data in the U.S. which indicate that emissions are low (relative to the total U.S. inventory). From the Canadian perspective, the designation was not on the basis of low emissions but rather due to the fact that there was probably limited value to be added by the BNS to the Iron and Steel Strategic Options Process (SOP) / Canada Wide Standards (CWS) for Iron sintering already underway in Canada.
It was also noted that the low priority designation, in the future, would be dependent on the success of the Canadian reduction mechanisms (CWS) already underway.
At previous meetings, the workgroup had decided that its efforts for this sector could best be spent in tracking Canadian P2 progress for this sector.

A similar question was asked regarding how the steel (EAF) priority designation had been determined.

Steel (EAF) would also be covered in the Canada SOP reduction activities, and additional testing in Canada was also currently being pursued.
In the U.S., the workgroup was unable to determine a priority designation due to a lack of testing data; therefore, participants at previous teleconferences determined that the workgroup should focus its efforts on exploring how to achieve dioxin/furan testing at U.S. steel (EAF) facilities.

John Crouch (Hearth Products Association) expressed concern about the potential for duplicative actions occurring between the BNS and the CWS process.

Herb Estreicher (Covington & Burling) raised the issue of whether and how other sectors might be evaluated in the context of the decision tree process. As examples, he mentioned carbon regeneration, secondary aluminum, magnesium products manufacturing, and POTW (publically owned treatment works) sludge. The response from workgroup leaders was that the workgroup had agreed to certain criteria to select the original sectors to which the decision tree process would be applied. The workgroup leaders wanted to reach closure on those sectors to meet the ultimate goal of allowing the workgroup to begin work on high priority actions. How to raise issues associated with other sectors would be covered in the discussion of next steps for the workgroup and process changes, but it was expected these issues could be raised at the general workgroup meetings or teleconferences.

John Crouch noted that another information need was on the nature of airborne dioxin/furan plume and transport, and on how this affected the impact of residential wood combustion on the Great Lakes.

A question was raised concerning the basis for the decision on secondary copper smelting.

Secondary copper smelting was not included in the current Canadian inventory, but assessment of this sector is currently underway in Canada. Secondary copper smelters in Canada are defined facilities which produce a pure copper product.
It was reported that there are currently only two secondary copper smelters in the U.S. Dwain Winters (EPA) reported that the dioxin/furan emissions from these two remaining facilities were estimated to be about 10-20 g TEQ/yr maximum.

Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) and Medical Waste Incineration (MWI)

Stephane Gingras raised the issue of the varying situations regarding MWC and MWI in the U.S. versus Canada, and asked whether the sectors were in similar situations in the two countries.

Sandro Leonardelli recounted the status of MWC and MWI in Ontario, including the current development of draft standards under the CWS process.
It was noted that emission estimates for MWIs in Canada will be revised significantly upward.
In the US, the emissions data for MWIs is based on six incinerators and there was less concern about meeting the expected reduction in air emissions.
Stephane suggested that there was still uncertainty associated with the CWS reductions process because it was dependent on provinces following through with implementing the standards once they are finalized.
Stephane proposed that the MWI sector should not be ranked as low because of several factors, including: good pollution prevention (P2) opportunities for this sector, dioxin-containing ash/ash disposal issues, and the fact that the reductions are not in hand. more data is available.
Justin Semion (NWF) questioned whether the workgroup should wait on designating the MWI sector until more data is available.

The discussion evolved into consideration of two main issues: air emissions and ash management.

Regarding dioxins/furans in fly ash in the U.S., Dwain Winters noted that the goal of MACT standards and associated technology was on the prevention of dioxin/furan formation in the first place. Therefore, with effective control technology, dioxins/furans should also be prevented from being formed at high concentrations in fly ash.

Dwain also noted that ash from these types of facilities, in the U.S., is disposed of in a monofill where the ash is isolated from other substances that might encourage the leaching of dioxin. Because dioxins and furans are extremely hydrophobic chemicals, the absence of other carriers (an oil, for example) would eliminate the leaching of dioxins from these landfills.

Regarding dioxins/furans in fly ash in Canada, it was reported that available information did not indicate that Canada had a monofill requirement for MWC or MWI ash. In Canada, the sense of the group was that bottom ash could be disposed of in a sanitary landfill while fly ash may be considered a hazardous waste, but could nevertheless be combined with bottom ash.

Dave Robinson (Western Lake Ontario Environmental Coalition), noted that at the Canadian SWARU facility, ash is stabilized and used as an interim cover in sanitary landfills.

It was agreed by the workgroup and the workgroup leaders that more information was needed on ash management and that it was an open issue. With ash management designated as an open issue and as an outstanding action item for the workgroup, the workgroup agreed to designate priority levels for MWC and MWI based on air emissions.

Based on air emissions, the workgroup agreed that MWCs could be considered a low priority in both Canada and the US, with the caveat that the workgroup should keep a careful eye on compliance.

Again based on air emissions, the workgroup decided that MWIs should be designated as a low priority in the US and medium priority in Canada.

That decision brought closure to the decision tree process.

Next Steps:

Little time remained to discuss next steps. Options for addressing the high/medium priority sectors (open burning, residential wood combustion, PCP treated wood, MWI in Canada) and the outstanding information action items (EAF steel emissions testing, ash management) including formation of subgroups or individual assignments were briefly introduced.

Dan Hopkins noted that pollutant efforts aimed at residential wood combustion have already been initiated by the B(a)P workgroup and suggested that the dioxin workgroup effort should be coordinated with the B(a)P workgroup. It was further suggested that the B(a)P workgroup should take the lead on reduction efforts directed at residential wood combustion, and dioxin workgroup members interested in supporting those activities could work with the B(a)P workgroup. There was no disagreement to this plan voiced at the meeting.

It was proposed that the workgroup have a follow-up conference call on June 20, 2000 to finish discussion of the agenda items for the stakeholder meeting, including decisions on next steps, actions, and changes to the workgroup process in light of completion of the decision tree process. With that proposal, the meeting adjourned.

Participants Roster

Frank Anscombe, USEPA
Andre Auger, Canadian Portland Cement Association
Robert Bailey, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Robert Bilyea, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
John Crouch, Hearth Products Association
Tom Dann, Environment Canada
Hugh Eisler, Canadian Chlorine Coordinating Council
Herb Estreicher, Covington & Burling
Stephane Gingras, Great Lakes United
Nan Gowda, USEPA Region 5
Derek Grasso, American Ref-Fuel
Doug Green, Piper & Marbury, LLP
John Gulland, The Woodheat Organization
Darryl Hogg, Environment Canada
Dan Hopkins, USEPA Region 5
Denis Kemp, Falconbridge Limited
Steve Kratzer, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Sandro Leonardelli, Environment Canada
Jeffrey Lynn, International Paper
Robert Matheson, Environment Canada
Greg Merrill, Chlorine Chemistry Council
Tracey Norberg, Rubber Manufacturers Association
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Dave Robinson, Western Lake Ontario Environmental Coalition
Justin Semion, National Wildlife Federation
Joe Stearns, Chlorine Chemistry Council
Leonard Surges, Noranda, Inc.
Dwain Winters, USEPA
Anita Wong, Environment Canada