Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy

IMPLEMENTING THE BINATIONAL TOXICS STRATEGY
Implementation

Stakeholders Forum
November 16-17, 1998 - Chicago, Illinois

HCB/B(a)P Workgroup Meeting Minutes

Workgroup Leaders:
Steve Rosenthal – USEPA Region V
Tom Tseng – Environment Canada

Facilitator:
Abra Bennett, Battelle

The meeting opened with an update by the workgroup leaders on activities since the last meeting. Since virtually all of the meeting participants were attending their first workgroup meeting, there was a brief discussion of the approach of the BNS, the purpose of the workgroup, and the four step process.

Group members represented the rubber tire manufacturing, pesticides manufacturing, hearth products, petroleum refining, coke manufacturing, and chemical manufacturing industries. The following issues were identified as important to workgroup participants:

• Identifying the sources of data used by EPA and EC;
• Sharing success stories, and exploring the potential for transfer of successes within an industry sector;
• Clarifying inventory information and accuracy;
• Learning about how the challenges of the BNS relate to individual facilities and sectors;
• Sharing information about the control of BNS substances;
• Learning about upcoming regulations that potentially affect participants;
• Exploring the role of long-range transport in Great Lakes pollutant levels;
• Providing a forum for information exchange;
• Exploring the idea of appropriate thresholds for BNS substances, especially in relation to health impacts.

The following activities were identified as possible actions for the workgroup to take: developing reduction action plans, drafting sectoral use/release estimation methodologies, and some selective additional recruitment. All of the major stakeholder industry sectors were represented and additional input would also be requested from the American Petroleum Institute and the Masonry Heater Association. No environmental organizations were represented at this meeting of the workgroup.

Since virtually all of the participants were new to the workgroup process, there was considerable discussion of how information could best be exchanged and verified between the industry sectors and the government agencies. Actions that were identified for follow-up with each industry sector include:

Pesticides Manufacturing

• Success stories would be formalized by Zeneca.
• Since reductions in this sector may be more of a cost issue than a technical issue, incentives need to be explored.
• A determination should be made as to whether there is a de minimis level of HCB emissions.

Rubber Tire Manufacturing

• Review and comment on the Section 112 (c)(6) report’s emission factors for this sector.

Petroleum Refining

• Review inventory data on FCCUs to determine the source of emissions estimates, since industry participants do not know of any testing of FCCUs for B(a)P. Contacting API may shed some light on this issue.
• Develop general estimation techniques for this sector.
• Get the 10/98 API/WSPA report on emissions factors for refinery combustion processes.
• Determine the effect of the pending MACT on FCCU B(a)P emissions.

Hearth Products

• Develop a proposal on trade-ins for older, more polluting woodstoves.
• Review emissions inventory assumptions.
• Determine the potential for USEPA outreach with wood stove associations.

Coke Ovens

• Submit success stories.
• Continue to work with EPA on the development of new emission factors.
• Prepare a regulatory analysis of both existing and potential MACT-related reductions.
• Determine emission information on water discharges.