|
Chun Yi, Thanks for
recommending these. I noticed that the octa- and nona- homolog groups are not
included, probably because there are no factors for them within the set of
factors you identified. However, it probably makes sense to add these also, as
future emission factor profiles may include them. I therefore also recommend
adding: 53742-07-7 Nonachlorobiphenyl NNCB, TOT 55722-26-4 Octachlorobiphenyl OCCB, TOT There are also many dioxin and furan congeners that are in the
materials table. If we wanted to, we could also include codes for some PCB
congeners and/or Arochlor mixtures. See http://www.pic.int/en/CasNumbers/PCB%20CAS%20number.pdf
for the possibilities. It may be best to include just the chlorination-level
groups for now and we can discuss adding others during our annual dioxin/PAH
speciation argument ;-) Regarding adding these emissions to the 2002 inventory: with
the exception of the current b(a)p assessment and other egregious errors that
might be identified, we have not committed the states/province to updating the
2002 dataset once it has been published. I therefore recommend that we include
these factors in the emission factor table and relevant methodologies so that
they are included in the 2005 inventory. Any states that would like are welcome
to recalculate and update their estimated for 2002 or any prior year. I know
that I have seen some emissions data for PCB congeners from other combustion
sources as well, particularly open burning. It may serve us well to do a
mini-review of this prior to the 2005 inventory to see if there are others that
should be included. ______________________ From:
owner-airtoxics@great-lakes.net [mailto:owner-airtoxics@great-lakes.net] On Behalf Of Wu, Chun Yi I think it is better to have new codes in
RAPIDS since the toxicity profile for these congeners may be widely different. The suggested RAPIDS codes with the same
convention as PCDDs and PCDFs are:
To include emissions of these compounds in
the repository database for MN we need to have following steps:
My question is should we do all these for
the 2002 EI or we start to include them in the 2005 EI? Chun Yi -----Original Message----- Chun Yi, I think these are certainly emissions that fall within the scope of
our target list and so we should take what steps are necessary to include them.
It seems to me there are two ways to go about this: -convert these emission factors to total PCBs and estimate
emissions on that basis -include the appropriate pollutant codes and map them to total PCBs
for reporting My guess is that states may differ on how they’d like to do
this. I don’t see a reason we can’t make the modifications to
accommodate those who would like to do the second by adding RAPIDS codes for
the congener groups to the materials table and map them to total PCBs for
reporting. My guess is that you fall in this group. Would you like to take on
the task of recommending a set of material codes for the group to consider? Jon ______________________ From:
owner-airtoxics@great-lakes.net [mailto:owner-airtoxics@great-lakes.net] On Behalf Of Wu, Chun Yi -----Original Message----- The
emission factors for PCBs are attached. All these factors were created
after FIRE6.23 with an EPA date of 9/1/03. All these emission factors are
for External Combustion Boilers that burn Wood/Bark Waste. Chun Yi -----Original Message----- Chun Yi, Thanks
for the information. I believe that it is worth looking into this. We may want
to find out a few things. 1 What are the SCCs associated with these factors?,
2) Do factors exists for total PCBs for the same SCCs? 3) Do any of the states
collect data on these emissions or these processes?
|