Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

Stakeholder Forum - 1998

IMPLEMENTING THE BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
Implementation

Stakeholders Minutes
March 23, 1998 - Chicago, Illinois

Dioxins/Furans Workgroup Meeting Minutes

Workgroup Leaders:
Linda Martin - US EPA, Region V
Anita Wong - Environment Canada, Ontario Region

 Facilitator:
 Bill Ross

Roundtable introductions were made. Bill Ross provided some background and referred participants to the Dioxin/Furan Workgroup Background Paper. He also explained the purpose of the Workgroup, which is to implement the Analytical Framework outlined in the Binational Strategy.

Linda Martin and Anita Wong described the challenges/commitments under the Strategy and provided some background information and updates of activities related to dioxins/furans in their respective jurisdictions.

Bill Ross posed a question to the group about where do they think we are as a workgroup within the 4-step process for the strategy. Much of the rest of the meeting was a discussion that worked through the process, highlighted areas of consensus, and identified what potential next steps would be.

Comments raised by participants of the workgroup are as follows:

Step 1: Information Gathering-Discussions of status of Chemical; i.e., inventory, emissions sources, etc.:

We should build on existing efforts and find out where we are in current programs. On the U.S. side there are significant HQ involvement. We need to make sure we have HQ representatives within the workgroup. The US has a "Source Workgroup" that is batting around similar issues. We as a workgroup need to know what they are determining and duplicating efforts. This Source group also has its own set of "stakeholders". This Source group needs to inform us either in our next meeting or on the Web Site.

Established information should be agreed upon by both countries. We need to work from the same information base.

How will atmospheric deposition and long range transport (or the source contribution to all loading and source inventory) be addressed by the workgroup?

This was addressed by pointing out a separate challenge to address atmospheric inputs of Strategy substances to the Great Lakes and long range transport of Strategy substances from world-wide sources. This issue will be brought forward to the Integration Committee.

Previous atmospheric transport studies had shown that 80% of D/F are not addressed by known sources. We need to address the significant amount of unknown deposition if the new inventories still show such a gap.

Actions should not be delayed as a result of data gaps in inventories

Focus should be on pollution prevention rather than just the release inventories for both "big" and "small" contributor. We should be looking for voluntary actions from all types of emitters.

Need to prioritize issues, for example, focus on sources releasing kilograms before sources releasing milligrams of dioxins/furans

Need agencies to conduct monitoring, surveillance, and research strategies to keep making progress. We should use policy option and common sense and list together some common sources.

How will the two countries work together to go forward on this Strategy? How will we sort out the focus and interests of both countries? Especially if there are differing targets in the strategy for each country or different sources for each country?

The co-leads responded that at this point, the agencies are sharing and comparing information. A workplan will be developed according to how the information and meetings play out. This issue can also be brought forward to the Integration Committee and sources in the countries.

The two agencies should extract similarities and discrepancies in both inventories once they are out for the workgroup.

Step 2: Regulatory Analysis- Discussion of current and upcoming regulatory status:

It appears that specific Canadian D/F regulations pertain to mainly the Pulp and Paper sector

Anita Wong explained that limits for D/F are also included in the Provincial effluent regulations for other sectors. There was also discussion on CCME guidelines which can become mandatory if the province adopts them in a regulation or puts them in a Certificate of Approval, as in the cement industry.

There seems to be a lot of uncertainties with the inventories. Are we at the "low hanging fruits" stage? We need to separate out which issues should be focused on first. Do we have "low hanging fruit"? Or what is the "next" sector we should engage?

There were extensive discussions surrounding the need to identify what approach we want - pollution prevention (feedstocks) or control, and setting endpoints - whether it is a reduction target and/or virtual elimination. Some of the specifics mentioned were Cl controls (Pollution Prevention) -vs- Stream Management and/or emissions controls. It was pointed out the U.S. EPA has already looked at the Cl issue in terms of feed stock limitations. Need to see where U.S. EPA came out on that issue.

Some feel that the approach should be driven as a focus on virtual elimination of the substances, not just meeting the targets in the strategy. A pollution prevention approach provides more assurance that we are working towards virtual elimination. For example, meeting a non-measurable limit at the present does not necessarily mean the substance is virtual eliminated.

Some feel that any tools to be applied--or end points to be pursued--should not limit sectors on the approach to seek reductions. Past experience showed that working on a reduction target is more effective than debating the definition of virtual elimination before beginning to reduce voluntarily. Reductions can and will lead to virtual elimination.

It would be helpful if inventories include process information to help develop a tool with a pollution prevention approach.

Step 3: Options Identified - Discussion of voluntary reduction options:

Discussions in this area were very limited. Linda Martin briefly went over her draft workplan which contains potential technical work areas to follow up to help meet the US challenge. This included information gathering and inventories, biomedical incinerators waste minimization plans, LAMPs, Superfund/RCRA cleanup activities etc.

We need to identify sectors (Gaps) and assess actions in light of regulatory context to see what type of reduction could likely occur using both pollution prevention/ input substances and pollution controls.

A stakeholder offered some additional source sectors that should be looked into. These are:

• VCM production ( including their on site hazardous waste incinerators)
• Accidental PVC fires
• PCP treated surfaces
• Magnesium Metal production ( there are two plants in the US)
• Medical incinerators

Step 4: Actions Toward Virtual Elimination- Action items identified for workgroup

This step was touched on however the concerns raised by the stakeholders indicated that since the release inventories from both countries have not been finalized, specific issues could not be identified for action at this point. Both workgroup leaders agreed to alert this group as soon as inventories are released.

When the sectors are identified, how do we engage sources and what do we want sources to do? Develop the most effective way for sources to reach virtual elimination? If voluntary action does not work we should have regulatory backup.

One suggestion was made that we need to get the information regarding the reductions gained under the strategy out to the public. Something similar to the TRI reporting. This should include both goals and results.

What are the resource commitments from the agencies for this Strategy?

Discussion of the need to identify and recruit additional members:
The workgroup did touch on this issue. Not all of the appropriate stakeholders were at the table. This is an area we will work on.

Discussion of goals and workplan for workgroup:
A concern was raised that governments need to ensure all similar activities are integrated since there are several programs related to Dioxin/Furan underway.

Issues identified for referral to Integration Group:
How will atmospheric deposition and long range transport (or the source contribution to all loading and source inventory) be addressed by the workgroup?

This was addressed by pointing out a separate challenge to address atmospheric inputs of Strategy substances to the Great Lakes and long range transport of Strategy substances from world-wide sources. This issue will be brought forward to the Integration Committee.

How will the two countries work together to go forward on this Strategy? How will we sort out the focus and interests of both countries? Especially if there are differing targets in the strategy for each country or different sources for each country?

The co-leads responded that at this point, the agencies are sharing and comparing information. A workplan will be developed according to how the information and meetings play out. This issue can also be brought forward to the Integration Committee and sources in the countries.

Discussion of any upcoming events or activities pertaining to the workgroup:
 
Linda Martin mentioned that the 1994 baseline dioxins assessment is targeted to be complete by the end of the fiscal year. The U.S. EPA's emissions inventory is targeted to be released in mid-April. The U.S. indicated that the draft emissions inventory would be provided to the workgroup members through the BNS web site.

Anita Wong mentioned that a draft Canadian dioxins/furans release inventory is undergoing internal review and will be distributed to stakeholders in the Federal/Provincial Task Force on Dioxins and Furans in April for comments. The inventory is targeted to be released shortly after the comment period.

Conclusions/ Next Steps are as follows:

There were three basic issues that appeared during the discussions throughout the day. These issues were:

The Workgroup leaders will let the attendees know soon what's happening and when the next meeting will be timely.

Attachments:

Participant Roster