Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

GLBTS Links

______________________

Dioxin / Furans

Stakeholders Minutes - November 13, 2002
Draft Workgroup Conference Call Minutes

Workgroup Leaders:
Anita Wong, EC
Erin White, EPA

Introductory Remarks and Announcements

John Menkedick (Battelle) started the meeting off with a brief overview of dioxin/furan workgroup involvement with the issue of PCP-treated wood. This issue arose from a decision tree process developed by workgroup members to assess major dioxin/furan sources and informational needs. In response to a need for additional information regarding the ultimate fate of PCP-treated wood, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) conducted a survey to gather information regarding secondary uses and disposal of used utility poles. The results of the survey enabled the workgroup to draft a list of issues related to the management of PCP-treated wood (with a focus on used utility poles) in the Great Lakes region, which was prepared for the workgroup in January 2002 and revised after the July 24, 2002 teleconference.

John also introduced the draft agenda for the meeting. He explained that the focus of this meeting would be to discuss the revised draft list of issues (distributed prior to the meeting) and consider next steps for the workgroup, to review the Burn Barrel Subgroup’s draft letter to Alstos, and to review the agenda for the Dioxin Workgroup breakout session at the GLBTS December Stakeholder Meeting.

Anita Wong (EC) started off by expressing an interest in moving ahead with the issue of PCP-treated wood and discussing next steps for the workgroup, especially in terms of developing outreach/education pilot programs and a strategy to improve the life-cycle management of utility poles.

Erin White (USEPA) agreed and added that she hopes the workgroup can put together a useful strategy for the life-cycle management of PCP-treated wood poles.

Discussion on PCP-treated Wood

John Menkedick asked if everyone had received the revised list of issues and potential next steps for the management of PCP-treated wood in the Great Lakes Region. He then asked for any comments on the revised list of management issues, explaining that this document could potentially serve as the guiding principles for the workgroup in assessing potential next steps.

Jim Roewer (USWAG) first wanted to add clarification to the minutes from the July 24, 2002 meeting. He explained that USWAG was interested in working with the EPA on issues related to treated wood in general and that USWAG feels it is important to inform the public on proper use and disposal of all treated wood products, of which PCP-treated wood poles make up only a small subset. Jim wanted to make it clear that in the last meeting he expressed interest in working with the EPA to develop a consumer education program to address the larger issue of all treated wood products, not simply PCP-treated utility poles.

Jim further explained that USWAG has been working with Dwain Winters (USEPA) at the national level to strengthen, “memorialize,” and encourage distribution of their guidelines on proper use and disposal of treated wood products.

There were concerns among workgroup members as to whether this cooperative effort between USWAG and the USEPA would address dioxins and PCP-treated poles specifically. Jim explained that dioxins would be addressed within the USWAG guidelines, which were originally developed for handling and disposing of utility poles and other treated wood products from the utility industry. He informed the workgroup that although the national effort is meant to address treated wood holistically and his discussions with Dwain have not included plans for projects related to dioxins specifically, he feels that the workgroup’s concerns with PCP-treated utility poles will be adequately handled as part of this initiative.

There was discussion on what the workgroup could do to address this issue specifically from the perspective of dioxins. Dale Phenicie (CGLI) expressed concerns over the workgroup expanding the issue to include all treated wood, not just PCP-treated wood, and thus addressing more chemicals than those currently covered by the GLBTS. He expressed an interest in gaining more information on the USWAG guidelines, especially if the workgroup decides to support this effort. He added that he feels communication between the Dioxin Workgroup and the USWAG/EPA initiative must be increased.

Anita stated that from the Canadian perspective, they have a program in place that looks at the broader issue of treated wood holistically, and she feels that it would be beneficial for the workgroup to support some of these broader efforts. However, first they need to make sure these national-level efforts are covering the dioxin-specific issues appropriately. Erin added that she would not want the workgroup to focus their energy on issues that are already being addressed by one of these broader initiatives, but she hopes that the workgroup might be able to address the issue on a smaller scale without duplicating efforts. She asked the workgroup to generate ideas of projects where the workgroup could be effective at addressing the issue of PCP-treated wood, especially with regards to utility poles in the Great Lakes region.

Anita responded by saying that Environment Canada would be interested in supporting a local pilot program led by the Dioxin Workgroup. Discussion followed on what type of pilot program would be appropriate for the workgroup to initiate. The possibilities of addressing a different audience than the national-level initiatives (for example, focusing on industry rather than consumers) and working to encourage local disposal/recycling efforts were brought up. The possibility of a pilot program that would look specifically at the current secondary uses of PCP-treated wood poles was also discussed (for example, contacting local farmers who might be using PCP-treated utility poles). This type of program could be used to gain a better understanding of the hazards associated with inappropriate secondary uses and how those hazards might be reduced.

Dwain brought up the point that if the workgroup made an effort to look at secondary uses, they wouldn’t be able to focus solely on PCP-treated wood poles because people do not know the difference between the different types of treated wood products they may have. Thus, he expressed his opinion that addressing the issue at the national level, through initiatives like the one EPA is working on with USWAG, would be more likely to achieve the desired result. In response to concerns over including more chemicals than the GLBTS currently covers, Dwain explained that the workgroup does have a precedent for supporting efforts that address more than just dioxins (for example, the burn barrel subgroup recognizes that more pollutants than just dioxins/furans are involved with burning trash and their efforts attempt to address all of those pollutants). Dwain also stated he feels that to create a national-level program, they must first coordinate all of the efforts within different EPA agencies targeted at treated wood. Until that happens, he feels that it would be hard for the workgroup to identify beneficial pilot projects and move ahead with next steps related to PCP-treated utility poles.

Anita expressed her opinion that there are dioxin-specific efforts that the workgroup could focus on as next steps, at least from the Canadian perspective. First, Environment Canada needs to develop Consumer Information Sheets for PCP/creosote-treated wood and regional outreach programs. Second, research needs to be done to better understand secondary applications of treated wood products and identify target sector for outreach initiatives. Third, continued research on energy recovery is a topic of interest in Canada. Jim explained that from the U.S. utilities perspective, they are trying to get information from their Consumer Information Sheets incorporated into their guidelines for the use and management of treated wood products. He feels that the next major step should be trying to get industry (especially utilities, but also other industries that work with treated wood), to adopt those guidelines at the national level.

Ted Smith (USEPA) suggested the possibility of having the Dioxin Workgroup pursue a local outreach initiative on top of the USWAG/EPA effort. He brought up the point that a small scale education effort could help a national program because local projects are more mobile and may be able to provide useful information on how to distribute outreach materials successfully.

Discussion among workgroup members continued as to whether it would be more effective for a national effort or a local effort to be implemented first. The point was made that although a national program could help identify areas where local efforts are most needed, at the same time a finalized national program does not necessarily need to precede local efforts for a local pilot project to be successful.

December Stakeholder Meeting: Dioxin Workgroup Agenda

John mentioned that this discussion was extremely relevant to another agenda item for the teleconference – the agenda for the Dioxin Workgroup breakout session at the December GLBTS Stakeholder Meeting. He summarized what he heard as the two options presented by workgroup members as next steps for the workgroup: (1) allow national efforts to proceed and then evaluate where local efforts might be useful, or (2) discuss current opportunities for smallscale pilot programs that could parallel national-level efforts. John requested comments on whether further discussion was required at the December 3rd meeting or whether PCP-treated wood could be removed from the agenda.

Erin expressed her opinion that the PCP-treated wood discussion should be kept on the agenda. She asked Jim to share USWAG’s guidelines with the workgroup so that they could review them before deciding whether the workgroup would want to do something on this issue or not. Dan Hopkins (USEPA) agreed that it would be beneficial for the subgroup to gain a better understanding of what is going on at the national level before trying to determine where the workgroup’s efforts would be most effective. Erin also encouraged members of the workgroup to think of ways in which the workgroup could be used to support a national-level effort and ideas for local pilot projects for the workgroup to implement.

John suggested asking people involved with national efforts related to treated wood issues in Canada and the U.S. to look at the “Revised Draft List of Issues and Potential Next Steps” (dated November 2002), developed by the workgroup as a guidance for their actions related to PCP-treated wood poles, and report on (1) the degree to which their program addresses each issue, and (2) their expected time-line for addressing each issue.

Jim and Dwain agreed that December would be too early to know the details of the USWAG/EPA cooperative effort and Jim suggested cutting back the amount of time designated for the PCP-treated wood discussion. Anita and Erin agreed to consider this discussion when finalizing the agenda for the December 3rd meeting.

Burn Barrel Subgroup Letter

Bruce Gillies (EC), the burn barrel subgroup lead, presented the letter that the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) had drafted to send to Alstos, a burn barrel distributer. He explained that the subgroup had found a number of companies, including Alstos, producing or selling barrels for burning trash, which is illegal in many states. He explained that the Minnesota PCA and the burn barrel subgroup wanted the Dioxin Workgroup to support sending a letter, along with the Minnesota PCA, from either the Dioxin Workgroup or the GLBTS that would indicate the human health concerns associated with producing and/or selling such a product and encouraging the company to consider product or marketing changes.

Due to time constraints, Erin suggested discussing this issue further at the December meeting, especially with regards to who would sign the letter and what the implications are if the letter is signed by EPA, EC, GLBTS, the workgroup leaders, etc.

Action Items

Anita will update the EC “PCP-treated Wood” paper, distributed to the workgroup prior to the meeting, to address a discrepancy related to the status of PCP-treated wood informational needs in the United States (the status was changed to “low” priority in response to the USWAG surveys).
Jim will distribute USWAG’s updated guidelines for the workgroup to review before the December meeting.
Erin asked the workgroup to send any agenda items they would like to see discussed at the December meeting to Anita or herself, and they will send out a revised agenda before the December meeting.

Next Meetings

GLBTS December 2002 Stakeholder Forum: Dioxins/Furans Workgroup Breakout Session. December 3, 2002 in Chicago, IL.

Participants Roster

Tod Abel, Chlorine Chemistry Council
Nicole DiMonte, Battelle
John Estenik, Ohio EPA
Herb Estreicher, Covington & Burling
John Festa, American Forest and Paper Association
Bruce Gillies, Environment Canada
Dan Hopkins, USEPA
Tom Hornshaw, Illinois EPA
Madhu Malhotra, Environment Canada
John Menkedick, Battelle
Shawn Michajluk, Environment Canada
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industry
Jim Roewer, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Rob Simon, Chlorine Chemistry Council
Ted Smith, USEPA
Erin White, USEPA
John Wilkinson, Wilkinson Chemical
Dwain Winters, USEPA
Anita Wong, Environment Canada
Cindy Yang, Environment Canada