Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy
Dioxin / Furans

Workgroup Leaders:
Anita Wong, EC
Nan Gowda, EPA

Facilitator:
John Menkedick, Battelle

Introduction

The objective for the day was to develop plans for implementing reduction and/or information gathering projects for those sectors designated high or medium priority in the decision tree process. Progress updates were also to be given on efforts to address information gaps and outstanding action items.

Materials distributed to workgroup members prior to the teleconference included:

• The teleconference agenda
• Minutes from the July 11 conference call

John Menkedick (Battelle) briefly reviewed workgroup progress to date:

• In May, the group finished the decision tree process, including revisiting and finalizing GLBTS priority designations for all targeted sectors
• The group has begun to develop plans for implementing reduction and/or information gathering projects, and to address outstanding workgroup action items and information needs

Anita Wong (EC) noted that in the decision tree process, several areas for workgroup focus were identified. So far, a subgroup of the dioxin workgroup has been formed to address open burning, and an effort is underway under the B(a)P workgroup to address residential wood combustion. The remaining sectors of interest were primarily designated as focus areas for information gathering.

Nan Gowda (USEPA) announced that the U.S. GLBTS Step 1&2 draft report, “Dioxin PCDD (Dioxins) and PCDF (Furans): Sources and Regulations”, and the Step 3 report for external review, “PCDD (Dioxins) and PCDF (Furans): Reduction Options”, would be available at the end of this month on the U.S. EPA’s Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy website.

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

Workgroup Progress Updates

Backyard Trash / Open Burning

Joe Stepun (WLSSD), a participant in the open burning subgroup, provided the workgroup with an update on subgroup activities.

• Since the last dioxin workgroup conference call, the open burning subgroup had one meeting and is currently in the process of defining projects to focus on
• The subgroup has gained several new members, including participants from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, a person involved in the development of a Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan, and a person with expertise in developing outreach/education materials.
• Joe also noted that the subgroup could really use some administrative help at this time Joe reported that Dwain Winters (USEPA) had participated in the last open burning subgroup meeting and had provided the subgroup with a list of information gaps regarding regulatory control of open burning, and also identified some other information needs regarding factors affecting dioxin/furan emissions from open burning. The open burning subgroup is planning to follow up on some of these with information gathering efforts.

Joan Weyandt-Fulton (WLSSD), who is Western Lake Superior Sanitary District’s burn barrel project leader, provided additional information on the potential for coordination between WLSSD’s burn barrel efforts and the GLBTS open burning subgroup:

• There is an opportunity for the GLBTS open burning subgroup to coordinate with, or exist as an expansion of, the WLSSD burn barrel efforts
• Currently the WLSSD has initiated an open-ended Request for Proposal (RFP) calling for support for drafting outreach and education materials regarding open burning; funding for this project is from an EPA grant.
• Pending a cost assessment, the dioxin/furan open burning subgroup will consider the feasibility of expanding an open burning outreach project to the entire Great Lakes area, possibly coordinating efforts with the GLBTS B(a)P workgroup.

It was noted that overall, the prevalence of open burning was a result of 1) lack of regulatory control, 2) historic behavior patterns, and 3) the lack of an alternative trash disposal infrastructure. For example, in the WLSSD area, talks with county officials indicated that only one county was actively pursing enforcement of open burning violations.

• The strategy that would be employed in the open burning reduction campaign would focus primarily on education and influencing individual behavior.
• Hopefully, with increased public awareness, citizen pressure would lead to regulatory reforms.

A question was asked regarding the possible utility of an educational video on open burning alternatives.

• It was noted that in the WLSSD, most areas have garbage service available and thus the lack of alternatives to open burning is generally not a limiting factor.
• Recycling is also strongly encouraged in the WLSSD area.
• The intent of the WLSSD open burning campaigm is to ultimately eliminate open burning in all areas where garbage service is available.

The significance of open burning in the WLSSD was discussed. Although additional information is needed on the factors that influence the magnitude of dioxin/furan emissions from open burning, it was generally agreed that in WLSSD rural areas, as well as most rural areas, open burning is a significant source of dioxins/furans.

In the WLSSD, there was a past movement to prohibit open burning, however, it was defeated in the legislation, largely due to agriculatural conflicts (e.g., seed bag disposal,field clearing).

It was noted that Sandro Leonardelli (EC) was investigating the implementation of an open burning outreach campaign in Canada also, with the WLSSD project serving as a pilot.

A question was asked on whether there were plans to assess the success of the WLSSD pilot. It was hoped that interest and additional funding would continue and allow for a follow-up study.

It was also noted that this open burning outreach may also be an opportunity to spread the word about the GLBTS and its goals.

The timeframe for the WLSSD outreach campaign was planned for the spring and fall to correspond with the fire season and build on existing public awareness of wildfires.

It was also noted that additional dioxin/furan workgorup input may be needed on the open burning subgroup when and/or if it is decided to expand the open burning education campaign to the entire Great Lakes region.

Action Item Updates

Ash Disposal

Dale Phenecie (CGLI) reported that he had sent out just prior to this meeting a report from the Solid Waste Association of America.

• The report details a survey of waste combustors in 1993 and 1996 regarding ash disposal practices.
• Result of the survey show minimal change in ash disposal practices between 1993 and 1996, with changes starting to occur in 1996.
• The majority of states covered in the survey required ash management (86% of states allow ash co- disposal with municipal solid waste); however, indications are that many states might be shifting to monofill requirements.
• Regarding the re-use of ash, only about 20% engaged in this practice due to negative public perception

Nan Gowda (EPA) presented information on ash disposal practices in the U.S. gathered from state contacts (Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota):

• In Illinois, ash from waste incineration is not specifically tested for dioxins or furans. Bottom ash generally goes to a chemical waste landfill, and fly ash, if hazardous, goes to a hazardous waste landfill. Fly ash from one incinerator in the state is used to make cement blocks.
• In Michigan, MWC ash is disposed in a monofill with a liner, leachate collection system, and groundwater monitoring. MWI ash goes to a licensed municipal waste landfill. There is no testing of either ash for dioxins/furans.
• In Minnesota, mixed waste combustor ash is disposed in a dedicated monofill with a liner and leachate collection system. Ash is required to be tested for dioxins/furans on an annual basis. If testing indicated that dioxins/furans are below 1 ppb, then testing requirements are lessened to once every other year.

John Estenic (OEPA) reported that in Ohio, dioxin/furan testing is required before land application of ash. In general there are land application criteria for dioxin/furan levels in the soil after ash incorporation. It was noted that the federal criteria for land application of sludge and dioxin/furan clean-up goals in soils would likely change after finalization of the Dioxin Reassessment.

The key question regarding incineration ash was identified as being on whether it was actually going to monofills (i.e. whether it was being properly managed).

• According to workgroup discussions, it appeared that some ash was being disposed of in monofills, but that some may still be co-disposed
• Clarification was still needed on the proportions going to monofills versus other disposal methods.

Nan Gowda and Anita Wong reported that neither the U.S. or Canada had any sort of centralized database to track ash disposal practices.

Anita further reported that in Canada, bottom ash from MWC is considered non-hazardous and can be put in landfills, and is also being considered for use as road/aggregate filler. Fly ash from MWC must be tested, and if designated hazardous must be disposed of in a secure landfill or stabilized. For MWI, the majority of the ash produced is bottom ash (most MWI don’t have air pollution control devices that would generate fly ash) and therefore can be disposed in any landfill.

Workgroup goals for addressing ash management were to:

1. Understand current ash management
2. Assess the adequacy of ash management and determine if there were unacceptable dioxin/furan releases occurring

The workgroup generally concluded that more information was needed on disposal practices on the U.S. side. It was suggested that a short summary paper on the information gathered so far should be prepared to help better assess what next steps should be. It was agree that this paper would be prepared as a discussion aid for the November stakeholders meeting.

Residential Wood Combustion

Anita Wong (EC) provided the workgroup with an update on the Canadian wood stove testing of conventional and EPA-certified wood stoves:

• The study investigated releases of dioxins/furans, particulate matter, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and hexachlorobenzene
• Result are now under review with the Hearth Products Association

A conference call with EC, EPA, and the Hearth Products Association was held to discuss the possibility for a changeout program, including public education

• There was interest expressed from all parties, and the Hearth Products Association has drafted a proposal for the program.
• The process of finding partners to fund a changeout project is now underway
• A changeout/public education program on wood stoves will likely be lead by the B(a)P workgroup

It was mentioned that there is published data on dioxin emissions from fireplaces in the Dioxin Reassessment, and that Boise, Idaho also conducted a study on the distribution of wood stoves and fireplaces.

Pentachlorophenol-treated Wood

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

• The survey has been sent out to member groups and there has been a good response from utilities and the telecommunications industry, which are the primary industries using PCP-treated poles
• Currently, they are following-up with those that have not yet responded and have begin to compile and normalize the results
• The survey asked about all types of treated wood
• Possible questions regarding the survey include: representativeness of the sample, how well it reflects PCP-treated wood specifically, and how well the survey reflects regional differences.

It was noted that the level of dioxin contamination in PCP varies greatly, and that contamination levels now are generally much less due to better controls. Dioxin contamination may still be a concern however, due to the fact that many of the poles being taken out of service now are the older poles. The universe of older poles is gradually getting smaller.

Jim noted that the main focus of the survey was to determine the disposal fate of the poles; therefore, if proper disposal is determined, then dioxin concentration and age of the poles may only be secondary information. Jim reported that USWAG would have some preliminary results to report at the November stakeholders meeting.

Anita Wong gave the workgroup an update on the Canadian Wood Preservation Strategic Options Process (SOP):

• Currently under the SOP, technical options for management, disposal, and all life cycle aspects of PCP treated wood are being examined
• A report on the findings of the analysis is expected by the end of the year Steel Manufacturing (Electric Arc Furnaces)

Anita gave the workgroup an update on steel EAF testing progress in Canada:

• To date, two companies (Dofasco, Gerdau Courtice) have volunteered to conduct emissions testing
• Dofasco has completed testing; results showed relatively low dioxin emissions
• Testing at Gerdau Courtice took place a few weeks ago, with some results expected by the November Stakeholders meeting.

It was noted that EC is also trying to encourage the participation of additional companies in voluntary testing programs.

Information on the potential and options for conducting voluntary testing programs in the U.S. was still lacking at the time of this conference call.

Landfill Fires

Nan Gowda summarized the information he had gathered regarding the frequency of landfill fires in the U.S.:

• EPA regions do not require state reports
• There is generally no legal requirement to report fires, but the requirement could be part of an operating permit
• Based on 3 state contacts Nan talked to in the Great Lakes region, the frequency of landfill fires seems to be relatively low and the majority of fires are fairly small
• Fires are most typically started by lightning strikes and fires that exist in incoming waste

Anita Wong summarized the information she had gathered regarding the frequency of landfill fires in Canada:

• There is poor record-keeping regarding landfill fires, with most information existing as word-of mouth
• Generally, landfill fires are reported to be relatively infrequent, but once a landfill catches fire, it can smolder for a long time.

The group recalled that in the Dioxin Reassessment, landfill fires has received an order of magnitude estimate that was similar to open burning, and therefore there was concern that this was a significant source in the basin.

It was noted that information was also needed on the duration of fires, not just the frequency. In addition, the possible impact of fires occurring in smaller, un-permitted landfills was discussed.

Based on the information gathered so far, it was decided that the workgroup needed to further investigate the basis of the high emissions estimate in the Reassessment to determine if it was due to a high emission factor, or high activity level.

Base Metal Industry and Voluntary Testing in Canada

EC announced that Falconbridge has volunteered to conduct another stack test at a different facility (near Timmins) in Canada under the Volunteer Stack Test Emissions Program. The testing is currently in the planning stages.

In general, EC will fund stack emissions testing for certain industries in Canada; however, volunteers are needed. EC has in-house testing staff that can be provided, or testing by a contractor can be funded.

November Stakeholder Meeting Planning

Potential topics for the November stakeholder meeting were discussed, including:

1. Incineration ash disposal (summary presentation, identification of remaining issues)
2. Update on the open burning subgroup
3. Preliminary results of the Canadian wood stove study
4. Preliminary results of the USWAG utility pole fate study
5. Possible discussion of sector based strategies (e.g. coordination with B(a)P workgroup for wood stoves, and with the mercury workgroup for steel testing).

In general it was noted that progress is already being made on all of the dioxin workgroup high priority sectors.

New Action Items

1. Distribute an email to the dioxin workgroup announcing the availability of the GLBTS Step 1&2: Sources and Regulations and the Step 3: Reduction Options Reports
2. Distribute an email to the dioxin workgroup announcing the availability of the Second edition of the Canadian Dioxin Inventory
3. Prepare a short summary paper on the information gathered to date on incineration ash management to help the workgroup better assess what next steps should be

Next Steps

The Fall 2000 Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy Stakeholders' Forum will take place on Thursday, November 16, 2000 in Chicago at EPA offices.

Participant Roster

John Estenic, Ohio EPA
Herb Estreicher, Covington & Burling
Nan Gowda, USEPA Region 5
Tom Hornshaw, Illinois EPA
Mark Johnson, Weyerhaeuser
Dennis Kemp, Falconbridge Limited
Steve Krensher, Michigan Department of Environmental Protection
Jeffrey Lynn, International Paper
John Menkedick, Battelle
Dale Phenicie, Council of Great Lakes Industries
Jim Roewer, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Andy Sebastian, Stelco
Joe Stepun, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Joan Weyandt-Fulton, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
Anita Wong, Environment Canada
Maureen Wooton, Battelle

EPA Home | Privacy and Security Notice | Contact Us