Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

GLBTS Links

______________________

Dioxin / Furans

Stakeholders Minutes - November 16, 2000
Workgroup Meeting Minutes

Workgroup Leaders:
Anita Wong, EC
Nan Gowda, EPA

Facilitator:
John Menkedick, Battelle

Introduction and Announcements

The objective for the day was to continue to develop plans for implementing reduction and/or information gathering projects for those sectors designated high or medium priority. The meeting also allowed for discussion of open action items, updates from subgroups, and nomination of issues for future consideration.

Materials distributed to workgroup members prior to the teleconference included:

The meeting agenda
Minutes from the September 12 workgroup teleconference call
Internet links to the Canadian (Draft Second Edition) National Inventory of Releases of Dioxins and Furans, the U.S. Dioxin Reassessment Draft Documents for SAB review, the U.S. GLBTS Step 1&2: Dioxins and Furans Sources and Regulations draft report, and the U.S. GLBTS Step 3: Dioxins and Furans Reduction Options report for external review
A summary of information gathered on incinerator ash management
A summary of information gathered on the prevalence and frequency of landfill fires

Anita Wong (EC) noted that the second edition of the Canadian Dioxin Inventory is still available for comment on EC's Greenlane website until December 20th.

Nan Gowda (USEPA) reminded the group that the comment period for the U.S. GLBTS Step 1&2 draft report, "Dioxin PCDD (Dioxins) and PCDF (Furans): Sources and Regulations" (available on the U.S. EPA's Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy website) was ending November 30th. Nan noted that the report would eventually be updated to reflect the revised dioxin inventory in the final U.S. Dioxin Reassessment.

Dwain Winters (USEPA) gave an update on progress with the U.S. Dioxin Reassessment

Currently the documents are under Science Advisory Board (SAB) review
Preliminary indications are that this draft will be accepted, with some revision, by the SAB
The earliest expected date for the final document, which would include minor revisions (but none affecting the overall characterization/relative magnitude of sources), is in February

The workgroup discussed the U.S. dioxin inventory numbers in comparison to the Canadian inventory numbers.

Joe Stepun (WLSSD) announced that last week the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District released a video on dioxin reduction options in hospitals.

Next the workgroup moved on to progress updates on subgroups, action items, and information gathering efforts.

Progress Updates

Residential Wood Combustion

An update on the residential wood stove study in Canada was provided by Anita Wong:

Results of testing, conducted to compare releases from the old conventional and newer EPA-certified wood stoves (using both hard wood and soft wood) are still under review
The study investigated releases of dioxins/furans, particulate matter, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and hexachlorobenzene; results are still unclear regarding dioxin emissions

It was noted that the significance of residential wood combustion as a source of dioxins and furans in Canada has dropped due to revisions to the emissions factors and wood use statistics. However, the comment was made that activity levels are often difficult to define for area sources.

Although activities related to wood stoves are on hold for the dioxin workgroup until the results of the wood stove study are released, Canada and the U.S. (with the GLBTS benzo(a)pyrene workgroup) are in the process of organizing a coordinated binational wood stove changeover effort. John Crouch and Anita Wong summarized progress to date on the Great Lakes Wood Stove Changeout:

The “Great Stove Changeout” is planned for winter 2001
To encourage cleaner burning alternatives, workshops are planned in various communities

The importance of industry participation and adequately promoting the changeout events in the success of this effort were noted. Discussions on these and other issues will continue to take place in the B(a)P workgroup.

Backyard Trash / Open Burning

Bruce Gillies (EC), the EC lead for the open burning subgroup, provided the dioxin workgroup with a summary of subgroup activities to date:

The subgroup formed last spring, and since that time, there have been five teleconferences
There are about 15 regular participants, including representatives from EPA and EC, state government, citizens, the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, and the Council of Great Lake Industries
Bruce noted that additional participation is needed from other states and Ontario, community level groups/representatives, and other non-governmental organizations.

Teleconference topics have included:

The WLSSD open burning prevalence survey
Discussion of the link between barrel burning and human uptake of dioxin/furans
Updated technical information on emissions
Whether to include agricultural burning (the current decision was not to address agricultural burning (defined as burning directly related to the agricultural practice) at this time within the context of the open burning subgroup)
A listing of standard questions for gathering information on regulations related to open burning
Discussion of current outreach programs
Discussion of a broad strategy for addressing open burning in the Great lakes region, including aspects that address: 1) changing behavior, 2) the development of an infrastructure to deal with waste disposal, and 3) potential regulatory/enforcement issues

Sandro Leonardelli (EC) and Marc Rust (Minnesota) are currently working on preparing an initial draft strategy document for review by the subgroup.

WLSSD is in the process of developing outreach materials on open burning that can be shared

throughout the Great Lake states. NY state is also very interested in the burn barrel effort.

Information gaps and issues at this time include:

A good understanding of the prevalence of open burning on the Canadian side of the basin
Agricultural practices which contribute to open burning
Factors affecting enforcement of existing regulations

It was noted that a lot of what is going on with open burning reduction activities hinges on the U.S. dioxin reassessment. For example, open burning was not even considered a significant source a few years ago, but now, the reassessment has made clear that it is quite significant.

It was announced that anyone wanting to participate in the burn barrel subgroup discussions or activities should contact Bruce Gillies (EC).

Pentachlorophenol-treated Wood

Jim Roewer (USWAG) provided an update on the USWAG survey of member utilities on the fate of PCP-treated utility poles:

The survey was distributed to electric utilities nationwide to gather information and provide an improved understanding of how utility poles, including PCP- treated poles, are managed
Preliminary results suggest that slightly under 50% of PCP-treated poles are disposed by sale or donation of materials for secondary use
About 30-35%of PCP-treated poles taken out of service are taken to landfills, and the remaining (about 20%) are burned for energy recovery
Re-use typically involves distribution with Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and other consumer safety sheets
Management fate appeared to differ depending on whether poles were PCP-treated or not

Jim noted that re-use of PCP-treated poles is an important program for both the utilities and their customers. Distribution of PCP-treated products for re-use is often a fairly controlled process, with products sometimes being sent to a centralized facility for redistribution. A large portion of the poles distributed for re-use are used for structural purposes.

In the Great Lakes region, about 45 utilities responded to the USWAG survey. The workgroup discussed variation in re-use practices on a regional basis, and observed differences in management between PCP and non-PCP treated poles.

The workgroup identified and discussed the possible benefits of developing Best Management Practices for dealing with PCP-pole disposal. Issues that could be addressed might include dangers associated with burning of PCP-treated wood (e.g., in fireplaces), recommendations for disposal in landfills, and other language like that included in the 1987 agreement between EPA/OPPT and wood treaters.

Alternatives to PCP-treated wood products were discussed:

The primary wood preservatives are chromated copper arsenate (CCA), pentachlorophenol, and creosote, and therefore the best thing to do is to plan management for all three materials
Because utility poles are a huge cost investment, utilities are currently evaluating potential methods for extending the life of PCP-treated poles
It was also noted that there are non-wood alternatives available for utility pole use

The final USWAG report will be available within the next couple of months.

Anita Wong proposed that a representative involved in the Canadian Wood Preservers Strategic Options Process (SOP) be contacted to participate in the next binational meeting. She provided the workgroup with an update on activities and decisions made under the SOP to date:

For wood treaters, all 18 Ontario facilities are to be assessed by third parties and summary reports of recommendations submitted by March 2001; summary reports on plans for meeting all requirements are due by June 2001.
For preserved wood users, finalized users guidance documents and guidelines for the siting, design, management, operation and monitoring of treated wood storage facilities are in the process of being developed
Efforts are underway by EPRI to develop a life cycle analysis methodology for treated wood products, which will guide decisions on which products are best to use
Establishing a waste management hierarchy for treated wood and developing a National Waste

Management Strategy

The workgroup participants present agreed to contact a speaker familiar with the Canada Wide Standards (CWS), SOP, and USWAG for the next stakeholder meeting, and possibly to get information from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) on disposal options.

It was noted that the previous minutes should not refer to the USWAG survey as being conducted with the telecommunications industry.

Proposed CWS

Anita Wong summarized some of the new proposed technology-based CWS for iron sintering and steel manufacturing EAF:

For iron sintering, proposed BACT standards are: 1350 pg/m3 by 2002, 500 pg/m3 by 2005, and 200 pg/m3 by 2010; any new plants would have standards of 200 pg/m3.
For EAF proposed, BACT standards are: testing and reporting by 2002, 150 pg/m3 by 2005, and 100 pg/m3 by 2010; requirements would also include a minimum of one stack emission test per year; any new plants would have standards of 100 pg/m3

Next Steps

The next conference call is tentatively scheduled for February 6, 2001 (the first Tuesday in February).

Participant Roster

Bob Bailey, Council of Great Lake Industries
Malcolm Boyle, Waste Management and Research Center
Sue Brauer, USEPA Region 5
Rita Cestaric, USEPA
John Crouch, Gas Research Institute
Tony DeFalco, National Wildlife Federation
Herb Estreicher, Covington & Burling
Richard Fillman, Bethlehem Steel
Bruce Gillies, Environment Canada (Ontario Region)
Jack Goldman, Hearth Products Association
Nan Gowda, USEPA Region 5
Doug Green, Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe LLP / Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Tom Hornshaw, Illinois EPA
Mark Johnson, Weyerhaeuser
Jeffrey Lynn, International Paper
John Menkedick, Battelle
Janet Pellegrini, USEPA Region 5
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Jim Roewer, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Henri Selles, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Jim Smith, Environment Canada
Joe Stepun, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Dwain Winters, USEPA, OPPT
Anita Wong, Environment Canada
Margaret Wooster, Great Lakes United