Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

GLBTS Links

______________________

Back to Index
(About PDF)

Dioxin / Furans

Stakeholders Minutes
Dioxin/Furan Workgroup Meeting
November 14, 2001 - Chicago, Illinois

Workgroup Leaders:
Anita Wong, EC
Nan Gowda, EPA

Facilitator:
John Menkedick, Battelle

Introduction and Announcements

Materials distributed to the workgroup prior to the meeting included:

The meeting agenda
Minutes from the May 17 Dioxin Workgroup meeting
A summary, “Treated Pole Usage Summary-All Poles” from the Utility Solid Wastes Activity Group (USWAG) Utility Survey, presented by Jim Roewer at the May 17
meeting
A report, “Characterization of Organic Compounds from Selected Residential Wood Stoves and Fuels” from Environment Canada (EC) as part of the Residential Wood Stove Combustion study
A redistribution of progress summaries of information gathered on Landfill Fires and Incinerator Ash Management in the Great Lakes Basin.

John Menkedick (Battelle) convened the meeting with participant introductions and a review of the agenda. There were no proposed changed to the agenda and the workgroup agreed it was important to manage the day’s discussion to ensure all topics received some discussion.

Anita Wong (EC), Canadian Co-chair of the Dioxin Workgroup, gave a brief update on Canadian activities related to dioxin issues. She announced that Canadian Ministers have accepted Canada Wide Standards for Iron Sintering and have proposed new standards for electric arc furnaces (EAF). Anita also discussed recent Canadian stack testing and emission standards.

Nan Gowda (EPA), U.S. Co-chair of the Dioxin Workgroup, and Dwain Winters (EPA) provided a U.S. EPA update. They announced that the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation’s (CEC’s) Sound Management of Chemicals (SMOC) program has committed to the development of North American Action Plan for dioxins and furans. Dwain provided the workgroup with an update on the U.S. Dioxin Reassessment and National Dioxin Strategy plans through 2002.

Dwain also mentioned that U.S. EPA conducted some monitoring at the site of the World Trade Center disaster and did not find dioxin to be a major concern.

Workgroup Progress Updates

Backyard Trash/Open Burning

Joe Stepun (WLSSD) and other members of the burn barrel subgroup provided an update on the Burn Barrel Strategy. The implementation of the Burn Barrel Strategy has begun, and the partners are working on communication and building links with community leaders and municipal governments. The majority of discussion was framed around two questions: 1) Is there anything that the subgroup needs from the larger workgroup, and 2) Is there anything that the subgroup needs to report to the workgroup?

Darrel Piekarz (EC) reported that a survey similar to the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) survey on open burning practices was conducted in Canada and reached similar conclusions. The Canadian effort is in Phase 1 of an outreach strategy that will: 1) start dialogs with local leaders and decisions makers, 2) hold a workshop with the Lake Superior Forum on April 5, 2002, and 3) customize WLSSD outreach and education materials for Canada. Specific issues related to Canada were discussed,, including the sparse population and waste collection infrastructure problems.

Other issues raised in the burn barrel discussion included:

Concern over a transfer of waste burning from barrel burns to wood stoves or outside boilers
Desirability of a precedent in which all residential trash burning is banned
Concern over support of community leaders.

The burn barrel subgroup also raised the need for a web-based information system to track the status and changes in regulation related to open burning. It was assumed that the Binational Toxics Strategy web site would be the eventual host. Dwain suggested that the tracking system should track progress (legal, political, etc.) in all areas of Canada and the U.S., and perhaps Mexico. This way, learning can occur from progressive actions and areas outside of the Great Lakes Basin. Dwain noted that a resources commitment would be required. The workgroup leaders agreed to raise this issue with their respective governments.

There was further discussion of the broader need for tracking both interim and long-term outcome measures for the successes of the strategy.

Residential Wood Combustion

The status of residential wood combustion (RWC) in the decision tree process was reviewed: RWC had received a high priority rating, but action was deferred until the results of the Canadian wood stove study were released. Anita reviewed the results of the Canadian study, which, in summary showed:

significant decreases in the emission of other (non-dioxin) pollutants with the use of the newer EPA-certified wood stove
lower emission factors, in general, for dioxin/furan emissions from wood stoves than previously estimated
somewhat higher dioxin emissions from the newer EPA-certified wood stoves than from the older stoves.

Anita reported that the current Canadian position is to attempt to do more research on the emissions, but meanwhile, to support the wood stove change-out program due to overall net benefits (i.e., due to reductions in other pollutants).

Dwain reported that the current U.S. position was that while we can’t claim a dioxin benefit from the newer wood stoves, the data is not strong enough to conclude a dis-benefit. He noted that the net benefit of the newer stoves across all pollutants is significant.

Neither country has committed to an extensive testing program at this time. There was further discussion over the need for testing, costs and benefits of testing, the impact of switching to gas stoves versus newer wood stoves, and additional research needs such as evaluation of emissions as a function of the age of the stove.

It was suggested that the countries look into a potential partnership between governments and industry to conduct the testing more cost effectively.

The workgroup concluded that the priority status of this source should be changed. The new priority status would recognize a separate priority for two different areas related to wood stoves: 1) the testing and information gathering needs, and 2) the reduction opportunities. The testing need would be a medium priority, but the reduction opportunity would be listed as a low priority given the leadership of other workgroups (B(a)P) on this issue and the importance of the other pollutants.

Pentachlorophenol (PCP)-treated Wood

Jim Roewer (NRECA) gave the workgroup a presentation on the Utility Solid Wastes Activity Group’s (USWAG’s) projects related to treated wood. This included presentation of updated results of the survey of member organizations on treated wood management practices, a summary of a management options evaluation process, and an overview of developed Guidelines for the Use and Management of Treated Wood.

Results of the survey of end uses of utility poles taken out of service showed:

about 65% of treated utility poles taken out of service are sold or donated to the public
about 27 % of treated utility poles taken out of service are landfilled
<2% of treated utility poles taken out of service are incinerated or used for energy recovery

Jim reported that, as a result of the GLBTS process, member groups had developed an increased consciousness of issues associated with treated wood, including responsible management, guideline development and implementation, upgrading notification/consumer awareness, and evaluating alternatives to treated wood and alternative re-use options.

A question was raised on whether utility companies would consider take back programs for those 65% of poles that had gone out to the secondary market. Jim indicated probably not.

Discussion continued regarding the secondary market, including whether the public using the poles was showing concern and characteristics of the secondary use market (e.g., lighting poles for little league fields, farmers using the recycled poles for posts, etc.).

Jim referenced an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report, which looked primarily at urban utilities, on options for disposal or re-use on four types of treated-wood utility poles.

Concern was expressed over disposal option that involve used pole chipping and composting, and in particular that this end use may be more widespread than is currently thought. Jim and Doug Green (Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe/USWAG) noted that there are relevant warnings against chipping and mulching for some treated wood products.

Doug Green noted that numbers related to reuse and disposal practices are changing, and that options still need to be developed. A re-evaluation of what chemical to use for new poles is being undertaken.

Anita mentioned that Canada is going to release a guideline for post-use treated wood. John Menkedick suggested that, knowing now what is going on with utility poles, a future dioxin workgroup teleconference could be dedicated to looking at the USWAG management plan and discussing next steps.

The workgroup agreed they needed more time to discuss this issue and a conference call was schedules for January 9, 2002 at 10 AM EST.

The workgroup also requested that Jim and Doug write-up the results of the BTS process from their perspective, as a success story for the BTS with regards to raising awareness and motivating actions.

Landfill Fire Discussion Paper

John Menkedick and Anita presented a summary of the landfill fire discussion paper:

Information was gathered regarding the prevalence and frequency of landfill fires in Ontario and in Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
In the U.S., landfill fires reporting requirements vary, but they are often reported to the state. In most states, landfill fires seemed to be relatively infrequent. However, in Ohio, the number of reported fires was large. Preliminary follow-up indicated that most of these were probably not major landfill fires, but rather hot loads, dumpster fires, etc. Additional research could be conducted to more accurately determine the number of landfill fires.
In Ontario, landfill fires appear to be infrequent, with the majority occurring as a result of accidents. Information on landfill fires was not available for first nation communities.

Dwain recommended that the U.S. defer to the 2000 Dioxin Inventory for estimates of landfill fire significance, with more reliable data likely to be forthcoming in the future.

Anita noted that Canada does not generally view landfill fires as a significant source of dioxins, although they would like to have data from first nations to confirm this.

Ash Management Discussion Paper

John gave a summary of information collected as part of the GLBTS sector subgroup efforts. This information showed that, in the U.S., large municipal waste combustion facilities are required to be in compliance by 2002, and all indicators show that they are well below the new emissions standards. However, this raised the question of the possible effect of the MACT standards on ash (e.g., dioxin levels in the ash).

Dwain noted that the issue is getting more political attention. In the context of the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) treaty, this issue is treated as a media transfer. The U.S. is now considering conducting a more through ash inventory. Questions that need investigation include issues associated with ash disposal in monofills vs. mixed waste landfills, and the implications of mixing fly and bottom ash on ash disposal options.

In Canada, the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) requires differentiation between dioxin/furan release and transfer in their reporting of MWC emissions. In the U.S., under TRI, municipals are not required to report releases. In Ontario, the waste management regulation (Reg. 558) was recently revised to require more stringent monitoring requirements which would include dioxins and furans. This may also capture more wastes in the hazardous waste category. Anita will try to obtain updates on the impact of these regulations on incinerator ash.

A question was asked on whether dioxins are concentrated in ash as a results of emissions control requirements. Dwain indicated that at some point, EPA intends to conduct testing to measure and compare pollutants in ash before and after the implementation of MACT standards (i.e., to conduct a mass balance study, before and after MACT), but that there is not an organized program to do this right now. The use of technology to prevent formation of dioxins and furans may be expected to reduce the levels of dioxins/furans in the ash.

Due to time limits on the discussion, the workgroup agreed to revisit the question of next steps regarding the ash management issue at the end of the January 9th call.

Information Gaps and Testing Data Needed

Anita Wong noted that, although progress has been made with the priority sectors, there are still information gaps on dioxins/furans from many other sectors that may also be of interest to the GLBTS benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) and hexachlorobenzene (HCB) workgroups. Information needs discussed included:

The possibility of data from NPRI and TRI, some from voluntary stack tests.
The lack of recent data on petroleum refineries, aluminum smelters, and the pulp and paper sector kraft boilers. Information is also lacking on the steel sector (basic oxygen furnace, coke manufacture, blast furnaces), land applications of sludge, secondary copper smelting, and foundries. Anita mentioned that they would like to engage these sectors in a conference call.
Joe Stepun noted that a report regarding the land application of sludge is about to be released by AMSA. Testing was done in conjunction with the EPA.
Dale Phenicie (CGLI) noted that he has a contact with the Pulp and Paper Sector that may be able to help with ideas on how to get more information regarding kraft boilers.
Derek Grasso (American Ref-Fuel), who is in the wood-waste combustion industry, said that he would try to get a contact regarding additional information on commercial industrial waste combustor rule. Dale also volunteered to look into this.

The meeting adjourned.

Action Item List

Regarding open burning regulation – Nan Gowda (EPA) and Anita Wong (EC) committed to discussing the possible funding of legislation tracking / website sponsorship with EC and EPA
Regarding PCP-treated wood – Jim Roewer (NRECA) and Doug Green (Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe LLP / Utility Solid Waste Activities Group) agreed to provide a brief write-up summarizing results of the USWAG survey and other USWAG efforts as a result of the BTS process from their perspective
Derek Grasso and Dale Phenicie agreed to look into obtaining additional information on commercial industrial waste combustor rule.
A conference call is scheduled for January 9, 2002, with a planned focus on PCP-treated wood
The status of information on landfill fires and ash management, and next steps, will also be reviewed at the end (last 15 or 20 minutes) of the January 9th teleconference.
Any workgroup members that have additional contacts should please send their information to Anita and Nan.

Participant Roster

Bob Bailey, Council of Great Lakes Industries
John Crouch, Hearth Products Association
Doug Fairchild, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Nan Gowda, USEPA
Derek Grasso, American Ref-Fuel
Douglas Green, Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe LLP / Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Dan Hopkins, USEPA
Megan McGarrity, McKenzieParis
John Menkedick, Battelle
Janet Pellegrini, USEPA
Darrell Piekarz, Environment Canada
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Jim Roewer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
Joe Stearns, Chlorine Chemistry Council
Joe Stepun, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Dwain Winters, USEPA
Anita Wong, Environment Canada