CHARLOTTE METROPOLITAN AREA
-------
The APTD (Air Pollution Technical Data) series of reports is issued by
the Office of Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, to report
Technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies of
APTD reports are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies
permit - from the Office of Technical Information and Publications,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711 or from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
-------
CHARLOTTE METROPOLITAN AREA AIR POLLUTANT
EMISSION INVENTORY
Prepared by
Michael J. McGraw
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Environmental Health Service
National Air Pollution Control Administration
Division of Air Quality and Emission Data
Durham, North Carolina
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sincere gratitude is extended by the National Air Pollution Control
Administration to the many individuals and companies who contributed
to this study. '
Special thanks are due to William Dentler, Harold Cable and John
Gibson of the Mecklenburg County Health Department; W. E. Knight and
James McColman of the State of North Carolina Department of Water and
Air Resources; E. M. Fenn of the Catawba-Lincoln Air Pollution Control
Unit; James Spears of the Cleveland County Air Pollution Control Program;
Gary Lindler of the Gaston County Health Department; William Heitman of
the Rowan County Health Department and Ken Stone and Otto Pearson of the
South Carolina Pollution Control Authority, who contributed invaluable
-------
PREFACE
This report, which presents the emission inventory for the Charlotte
Metropolitan Area, is another in a series of surveys outlining the sources
and emissions of air pollutants for major metropolitan areas in the country.
These surveys, conducted by the National Inventory of Air Pollutant Emissions
and Control Branch of the National Air Pollution Control Administration,
provide estimates of the present levels of air pollutant emissions and
status of their control. The pollutants which include sulfur oxides,
particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, are
delineated with respect to source type, season of the year and geographical
distribution within the area. The general procedure for the surveys is
based upon the rapid survey technique for estimating air pollutant emissions.
These reports are intended to serve as aids in the proposing of boundaries
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Summary 3
Description of Study Area 9
Grid Coordinate System 16
Emissions by Category 18
Stationary Fuel Combustion 18
Steam-Electric Utility 18
Industrial 24
Residential... 26
Commercial-Institutional 28
Transportation 28
Motor Vehicles 28
Aircraft 30
Railroads 30
Solid Waste Disposal 33
Incineration 33
Open Burning 35
Industrial Processes.... 35
Evaporative Losses... 38
Automobiles 38
Gasoline Storage and Handling 40
Consumption of Solvents 40
Emissions by Jurisdiction 41
Emissions by Grid 54
Contribution of Point and Area Sources 55
Emmission Densities. 62
References 69
Appendix A 70
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Charlotte
Study Area 6
1A Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Study Area... 7
2 Percentage of Contribution of Each Source Category to
Total Emissions 8
3 Area and Population Characteristics for Study Area 12
4 Selected Manufacturing Establishments in Study Area 15
5 Annual Consumption of Natural Gas in Study Area 19
6 Annual Consumption of Coal in Study Area 20
7 Annual Consumption of Residual Fuel Oil in Study Area 21
8 Annual Consumption of Distillate Fuel Oil in Study Area 22
9 Average Chemical Analysis of Fuels Consumed in Study Area... 23
10 Air Pollutant Emissions from the Combustion of Fuels
in Stationary Sources 25
11 Summary of Domestic Heating by Number of Dwelling
Units in Study Area 27
12 Vehicle Miles of Travel for Motor Vehicles in Study Area.... 29
13 Sunrnary of Air Pollutant Emissions from Transportation
Sources 31
14 Air Traffic Activity at the Largest Airports in Study Area.. 32
15 Solid Waste Balance for Study Area 34
16 Air Pollutant Emissions trom Solid Waste Disposal 36
17 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Processes 37
18 Hydrocarbon Emissions from Evaporative Loss Sources
in Study Area. 39
19 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Cabarrus County 42
20 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Catawba County 43
21 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Cleveland County 44
22 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Gaston County 45
23 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Iredell County 46
-------
TABLES (cont.)
Table Page
25 Summary ot Air Pollutant Emissions in Mecklenburg County.... 48
26 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Rowan County 49
27 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Union County 50
28 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Chester County... 51
29 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in Lancaster County 52
30 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions in York County 53
31 Summary of Air Pollutant Emissions from Point Sources....... 55
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Map of the Charlotte Study Area and Surrounding Cities 10
2 Detailed Map of Charlotte Study Area 11
3 Population Density for Charlotte Study Area.. 13
4 Grid Coordinate System for Study Area 17
5 Point Source Locations for Study Area 63
6 Sulfur Oxide Emission Density from All Sources in
Study Area 64
7 Particulate Emission Density from All Sources in
Study Area 65
8 Carbon Monoxide Emission Density from All Sources in
Study Area 66
9 Hydrocarbon Emission Density from All Sources in
Study Area 67
10 Nitrogen Oxide Emission Density from All Sources in
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report is a summary of the Charlotte air pollutant emission
inventory conducted in December 1969. Since all inventories are based
upon a calendar year, the data and emission estimates presented are
representative of 1968 and should be considered as indicating the con-
ditions as existed during that year.
The Study Area, which was chosen on the basis of the distribution
of population and air pollution sources, consists of twelve counties
surrounding Charlotte. This area covers approximately 6,000 square miles
and had a 1968 population of 1,100,000.
A grid coordinate system was used to show the geographical distribution
of emissions within counties. The Study Area was subdivided into 92 grid
zones ranging in size from 25 square kilometers in the heavily populated
and industrialized areas to 400 square kilometers in the rural areas.
All sources of emissions were classified into five categories--
transportation, stationary fuel combustion, solid-waste disposal, industrial
processes and evaporative losses. Each of these source categories was
divided into two subgroups--point sources and area sources. Facilities,
which emit large quantities of air pollutants, were considered individually
as point sources, while the many remaining contributors such as motor
vehicles, residential and commercial fuel users, small industries and
on-site refuse burning equipment, were considered collectively as area
sources. For this report, seventy-one individual sources, which had
emissions greater than 0.5 tons per average annual day for any pollutant,
were classified as point sources.
Emissions were estimated by using various indicators such as fuel
consumption, refuse burning rates, vehicle-miles, production data, and
control efficiencies and emission factors relating these indicators to
2
emission rates. These factors represent average emission rates for a
particular source category. Since individual sources have inherent differ-
-------
the actual and estimated emissions are more likely in individual sources
than in the total emissions for a source category.
As in all emission surveys, the data presented are estimates and should
not be interpreted as absolute values. The estimates are, in some cases,
partial totals due to the lack of emission factors and production or
consumption data. Despite these limitations, these estimates are of
sufficient accuracy and validity in defining the extent and distribution
-------
SUMMARY
The annual emissions as estimated by the Charlotte Metropolitan Area
Air Pollutant Bnission Inventory are:
Sulfur Oxides 197,500
Particulates 366,300
Carbon Monoxide 531,300
Hydrocarbons 91,700
Nitrogen Oxides 144,400
The following is a brief description of the air pollutant emissions as
presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
Sulfur Oxides;
The largest portion of the sulfur oxides emitted came
from the five steam-electric plants located in the
Study Area which had coal fired units. Together these
plants accounted for 86 percent of total sulfur oxides.
The combustion of fossil fuels by other stationary
sources accounted for 12 percent of the sulfur oxides
emitted. The remaining 2 percent was distributed under
motor vehicles, refuse disposal and small industries.
Particulates:
The majority of the particulate emissions (67%) came from
the combustion of coal at the five power plants in the
Study Area. Individual sources of particulates from
industrial processes accounted for 21 percent of total
particulate emissions. The largest sources from industrial
processes were plants in the mineral products industry,
which accounted for 16 of this 21 percent. The combustion
of coal by industrial sources was the only other signifi-
cant source of particulates, accounting for 8 percent
of the total.
-------
Carbon Monoxide:
In most metropolitan areas the largest source of carbon
monoxide emissions is from automobiles and other motor
vehicles. This was also true in Charlotte as motor
vehicles contributed 93 percent of the carbon monoxide
emitted annually. Other transportation sources including
railroad and aircraft operations contributed another
1 percent.
The only other significant source of carbon monoxide
was from the inefficient combustion of refuse at open
burning dumps and on-site incinerators. This category
accounted for about 3 percent of the total emissions.
Hydrocarbons:
Exhaust gases from motor vehicles was the primary source
of hydrocarbon emissions, accounting for over 45 percent
of the total. Evaporative losses from motor vehicles
which includes losses from the gas tak, carburetor .and
engine crankcase accounted for 25 percent of total hydro-
carbon emissions. Other smaller evaporative loss sources
including gasoline storage and handling, industrial
solvent usage, dry cleaning plants, and miscellaneous
solvent usage, collectively accounted for 20 percent
of total emissions. Other sources included the open
burning of solid waste, railroad and aircraft operations,
and stationary fuel combustion, which accounted for 4,
2 and 2 percent, respectively, of total emissions.
Nitrogen Oxides:
The largest sources of nitrogen oxides were the five
steam-electric plants. The combustion of coal at these
plants accounted for 62 percent of total nitrogen oxide
emissions. The combustion of coal, oil, and gas at other
-------
The second largest source of nitrogen oxides was the
exhaust gas from motor vehicles, which contributed
almost 23 percent of the total. The remaining 2 percent
of the nitrogen oxides came from the disposal of refuse
by incineration and open burning and from industrial
-------
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN STUDY AREA, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL8
Sulfur
Oxides
3,000
300
3,300
16,600
171,900
2,500
2,500
193,500
200
150
350
300
--
197,500
Par tic -
ulates
6,000
1,000
7,000
29,000
246,000
900
1,800
277,700
1,000
2,300
3,300
78,300
--
366,300
Carbon
Monoxide
492,400
7,000
499,400
1,100
2,200
2,300
1,900
7,500
4,400
12,300
16,700
7,700
--
531,300
Hydro -
carbons
41,100
2,300
43,400
400
900
500
400
2,200
80
4,340
4,420
230
41,400
91,700
Nitrogen
Oxides
31,200
2,000
33,200
14,900
90,000
1,300
1,700
107,900
300
1,600
1,900
1,400
144,400
-------
TABLE 1A SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN STUDY AREA, 1968
(1000 kg/year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industrial
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL
Sulfur
Oxides
2,720
270
2,990
1,560
155,950
2,270
2,270
162,050
180
140
320
270
165,630
Par tic -
ulates
5,440
910
6,350
26,310
223,170
820
1,630
251,930
910
2,090
3,000
71,030
--
332,310
Carbon
Monoxide
446,710
6,350
453,060
1,000
2,000
2,090
1,720
6,810
3,990
11,160
15,150
6,990
--
482,010
Hydro-
carbons
37,290
2,090
39,380
360
820
450
360
1,990
70
3,940
4,010
210
37,560
83,150
Nitrogen
Oxides
28,300
1,810
30,110
13,520
81,650
1,180
1,540
97,890
270
1,450
1,720
1,270
-------
TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE CONTRIBUTION OF EACH SOURCE CATEGORY TO
TOTAL EMISSIONS IN THE CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Process Losses
Evaporative Losses
TOTAL
Sulfur
Oxides
1.5
0.1
1.6
8.3
86.0
1.9
1.9
98.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
--
100
Par tic -
ulates
1.6
0.3
1.9
7.9
67.1
0.3
0.5
75.8
0.3
0.6
0.9
21.4
--
100
Carbon
Monoxide
92.7
1.3
94.0
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.4
0.8
2.4
3.2
1.4
100
Hydro-
carbons
44.8
2.5
47.3
0.5
1.0
0.6
0.5
2.6
0.1
4.7
4.8
0.2
45.1
100
Nitrogen
Oxides
21.6
1.3
22.9
10.3
62.2
1.1
1.2
74.8
0.2
1.1
1.3
1.0
*
-------
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The Study Area for the emission survey of the Charlotte Metropolitan
Area consists of twelve counties--Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Gaston,
Iredell, Lincdln, Mecklenburg, Rowan and Union all in North Carolina and
Chester, Lancaster and York in South Carolina. The twelve county area
is located in the south-western part of North Carolina and extends into
South Carolina. Figure 1 shows the location of the Charlotte Study Area
relative to other large cities in its vicinity.
Figure 2 represents a more detailed drawing of the Charlotte Study
Area showing the major urban areas. It should be pointed out that the
boundaries of these areas do not correspond to city limits, but rather
give a general outline of the major clusters of population. The Study
Area occupies 5,960 square miles and contained an estimated 1968 population
of 1,115,000, which is approximately a 12 percent incraase since 1960
3
(Table 3). The population density map (Figure 3) shows the heaviest
concentrations near the city of Charlotte.
TOPOGRAPHY4
The Charlotte Study Area is located in the southemPiedmont and partially
in the Catawba River Basin. The area acts as a connecting link between
the steep to rolling hills of the mountain region to the west and the coastal
plain to the east. The mountains extend from southwest to northeast, being
about 80 or 90 miles from Charlotte on both the west and north. The general
elevation of the area around Charlotte is about 730 feet, with the land
rising toward the mountains to the southwest, west and north and decreasing
toward the coastal plain to the east and southeast. The Catawba River and
its tributaries run directly through the center of the Study Area from
near its northern boundary around Catawba and Iredell Counties down into
-------
Groensboro _!-. ,
. 0j Durham
Figure 1. Map of the Charlotte study area and surrounding cities.
-------
"1
IREOELL CO.
CATAWDA
-, ^
vStatesville
/ *xx
/ ROWAN CO. X
.^
CATAWBA CO.
I
'-"'Salisbury
-*
\
.v..
\
\
.-/-
.vKonnapolls
(
\
\
CLEVELAND CO.
\
\
/ >
' V'Shelby I.
NORTH CAROLINA
LINCOLN CO.
GASTON CO.
'v/
^ \ ;>Minnapoiis
I j \ ..'.' (^
\ , | CABARRUS CO. /
MECKLENBURG C0.
\
/ I '""-J Belmont;;
/
UNA
NA ( .
t
J
C'^
1
;
t
i
\
' _ . ___
^7
3
c,
\
\
C i ?> "/Charlotte \, /
SJ v /^^ ^
Jr / l
>^V o«9 ' 1
^"^ / '
o«kM) jo \ / -
ro,«co. ^*Wj y'" «»»«t» |
.,. X_ \ i
"j ,jRock Hiii ) ; ;
1 ' '
UL 1 .
-S i '
\ " " s"
L \
.-'^Chester % ^Lancaster \
" ' f ' ^
CHESTER CO. &S LANCASTER CO. ' '
^\.
Figure 2. Detailed map of the Charlotte study area.
11
-------
TABLE 3 AREA AND POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR CHARLOTTE
STUDY AREA
Political Jurisdiction
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Gas ton
Iredell
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Union
N. C. Subtotal
Chester
Lancaster
York
S. C. Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Land Area
(Sq. Mi.)
360
404
466
358
591
308
542
517
643
4,189
584
502
684
1,770
5,959
Population
1960 1968
68,100
73,200
66,000
124,100
62,500
28,800
272,100
82,800
44,700
822,300
30,900
39,400
78,800
149,100
971,400
74,700
85,800
71,600
143,100
69,100
31,400
337,800
89,100
50,300
952,900
32,000
44,300
85,800
162,100
1,115,000
Population
Density (1968)
207
212
154
400
117
102
623
172
78
227
55
88
125
91
187
-------
500000
520"00
-B9900000
460000 470 OOP 480OOP
440000-
430000
POPULATION DENSITY,
580000
,3950000
100 - 500
Cp] 500 - 1,000
1H 1,000 - 10,000
Figure 3. Population density for Charlotte study area, 1968.
13
-------
CLIMATOLOGY
Charlotte has a moderate climate, characterized by cool winters and
quite warm summers. The mountains have a moderating effect on winter
temperatures, causing appreciable warming of cold air coming in on west
or northwest winds. The prevailing winds are normally out of the northwest
averaging around 7 mph. In general, the climatological and topographical
conditions in the Charlotte Study Area are not conducive for the accumulation
of large concentrations of pollutants.
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL FACTORS
Table 4 shows selected manufacturing establishments in the Study Area
by county for 1968. ' Almost 1,000 establishments are shown by type of
industry. As can be expected Mecklenburg County has the largest total
number of establishments. The most interesting thing to note is the large
number of plants in the textile industry. Over half the total establish-
ments were textile mills or textile products.
-------
TABLE 4
SELECTED MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968
Jurisdiction
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Gas ton
Iredell
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Union
Chester
Lancaster
York
TOTAL
Grain
Products
1
4
1
1
7
2
3
6
7
0
1
3
36
Textile
Mill Products
30
140
44
116
27
24
43
19
15
13
5
22
498
Lumber, Wood
Products
2
20
6
12
11
7
22
10
6
1
3
2
102
Paper, Allied
Products
1
7
2
1
3
0
23
1
1
0
0
2
41
Chemicals
0
4
0
5
2
0
53
5
0
1
0
3
73
Rubber,
Plastics
1
8
2
4
1
0
10
1
0
0
0
0
27
Stone
Clay
Glass
2
10
13
5
7
2
20
13
4
1
4
5
86
Primary
Metals
0
0
1
4
1
1
10
2
2
1
1
3
26
Fabricated
Metals
1
6
1
8
7
0
51
6
2
0
2
3
87
Totals
38
199
70
156
66
36
235
63
37
17
16
43
-------
GRID COORDINATE SYSTEM
A grid coordinate system, based on the Universal Transverse Mercator
Projection (UTM) was used in the Charlotte Study Area to show the geograph-
ical distribution of emissions. A map of this grid system is presented
in Figure 4.
The UTM system was chosen due to its advantages over other standard
grid systems such as the Latitude-Longitude and State Plane Coordinate
Systems. The major advantages of this system are that (1) it is continuous
across the country and is not hindered by political subdivisions, (2) the
grids are of uniform size throughout the country, (3) it has world-wide
use, and (4) the grids are square in shape--a necessary feature for use in
meteorological dispersion models.
The Universal Transverse Mercator Projection is based upon the metric
system. Each north-south and east-west grid line, as illustrated in
Figure 4, is identified by a coordinate number expressed in meters. Each
point source and grid is identified by the horizontal and vertical coordi-
nates of their geographical center to the nearest 100 meters.
As shown in Figure 4, the Study Area was divided into 92 grids of three
different sizes25, 100, and 400 square kilometers. Grid zones of different
sizes are used to limit the number of grid zones and yet allow a satisfactory
definition of the geographical gradation of emissions. The majority of the
emissions is usually concentrated in the populated and industrialized portions
of a Study Area. Smaller grids are placed over these areas in order to
reflect abrupt changes in emissions within short distances. The use of
grid zones smaller than 25 square kilometers is not warranted because of
the inherent inaccuracies in the data. Since only a small percentage of
the total emissions occur in rural areas, larger grid zones are normally
used to show the distribution of emissions in these lightly populated portions
of a Study Area.
-------
500000
520000
-B9900000
46000° 470OOP 480000
i
44QOOO
580000
J\ 13930000
3950000
Figure 4. Grid coordinate system for the Charlotte study area.
-------
EMISSIONS BY CATEGORY
For the purposes of compiling the basic data and emission estimates,
the air pollutant sources were classified into the following five categories:
1. Stationary fuel combustion
2. Transportation
3. Solid waste disposal
4. Industrial processes
5. Evaporative losses
Each of these categories is considered individually in this section where
data sources are given and methods of calculation discussed.
STATIONARY FUEL COMBUSTION
The stationary fuel combustion category is concerned with any fixed
source which burns fuels for either space heating or process heating. The
four primary sources in this category are industrial facilities, steam-
electric plants, residential housing, and commercial and institutional
establishments. In the Charlotte area, coal, distillate oil and residual
oil were all in widespread use. Table? 5 through Table 8 present a summary
of the fuels consumed in the Study Area, and Table 9 presents an average
chemical analysis of these fuels.
Steam-Electric Utility
METHODOLOGY: Data on the five power plants in the area were acquired
from the Duke Power Company and compared to figures presented by the
National Coal Association. The data included the annual fuel consumption
for 1968, type and efficiency 0*. control equipment, sulfur and ash content
of the fuel and the type of furnace.
RESULTS: All five of the power plants in the area use pulverized coal-
fired boilers which range in size from 300 million BTU/hr. - 2,800 million
BTU/hr. Approximately 9 million tons of coal were consumed in these boilers
-------
TABLE 5 ANNUAL CONSUMPTION OF NATURAL GAS IN THE CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968
(Million Cubic Jeet)
Jurisdiction
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Gas ton
Iredell
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Union
N. C. Subtotal
Chester
Lancaster
York
S. C. Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Steam-Electric Industrial
1,940
1,570
2,000
5,000
2,050
330
3,120
2,590
500
19,100
350
750
27,300
28,400
47,500
Residential
440
350
380
1,530
500
130
4,340
340
90
8,100
290
300
510
1,100
9,200
Commercial and
Institutional
150
280
250
460
200
70
2,400
230
40
4,080
200
200
300
700
4,780
Totals
2,530
2,200
2,630
6,990
2,750
530
9,860
3,160
630
31,280
840
1,250
28,110
30,200
-------
TABLE 6 ANNUAL CONSUMPTION OF COAL IN THE CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968
(Tons)
Jurisdiction
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Gas ton
Iredell
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Union
N. C. Subtotal
Chester
Lancaster
York
S. C. Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Steam-Electric
.
2,216,000
610,400
5,031,600
--
1,228,600
9,086,600
--
--
9,086,600
Industrial
65,000
14,600
30,300
32,000
4,000
2,300
35,000
65,000
500
248,700
NA
135,000
250,000
385,000
633,700
Residential
9,000
5,800
13,300
20,500
6,600
5,000
25,100
10,000
4,000
99,300
2,700
4,300
12,100
19,100
118,400
Commercial and
Ins t i tutional
9,000
3,000
6,700
6,000
3,000
900
25,000
12,000
3,000
68,600
1,000
3,000
3,000
7,000
75,600
Totals
83,000
2,239,400
660,700
5,090,100
13,600
8,200
85,100
1,315,600
7,500
9,503,200
3,700
142,300
265,100
411,100
9,914,300
-------
TABLE 7 ANNUAL CONSUMPTION OF RESIDUAL FUEL OIL IN THE CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968
(1,000 Gallons)
Jurisdiction Steam-Electric
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Gas ton
Iredell
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Union
N. C. Subtotal
Chester
Lancaster
York
S. C. Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Industrial
1,600
1,200
2,300
3,500
1,600
800
3,000
3,000
900
17,900
800
1,000
6,100
7,900
25,800
Commercial and
Residential Institutional
400
300
200
j
500
400
200
2,200
500
100
4,600
200
100
300
600
5,200
Totals
2,000
1,500
2.500
4,000
2,000
1,000
3,500
3,500
1,000
22,500
1,000
1,100
6,400
8,500
-------
TABLE 8 ANNUAL CONSUMPTION OF DISTILLATE FUEL OIL IN THE CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968
(Gallons")
S3
tsJ
Jurisdiction
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Gaston
Iredell
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Union
N. C. Subtotal
Chester
Lancaster
York
S. C. Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Steam-Electric
--
243,500
200,500
1,009,000
347,700
--
1,800,700
1,800,700
Industrial
5,000,000
5,500,000
6,500,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
2,500,000
26,000,000
7,000,000
3,500,000
69,000,000
2,000,000
500,000
1,000,000
3,500,000
72,500,000
Residential
7,600,000
9,500,000
4,000,000
9,100,000
5,000,000
2,500,000
21,100,000
10,000,000
4,500,000
73,300,000
1,000,000
2,400,000
5,900,000
9,300,000
82,600,000
Commercial and
Institutional
1,400,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
500,000
18,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
28,400,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
28,400,000
Totals
14,000,000
16,243,500
12,200,500
19,109,000
13,000,000
5,500,000
65,100,000
18,347,700
9,000,000
172,500,000
3,000,000
2,900,000
6,900,000
12,800,000
-------
TABLE 9 AVERAGE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF FUELS CONSUMED IN THE
CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968
Type Fuel
Coal
Residual Fuel Oil
Distillate Fuel Oil
Type Source
Steam-Electric
Industrial
Domes tic -Commercial
Steam-Electric
Industrial
Domestic -Commercial
Steam-Electric
Industrial
Domestic -Commercial
7o by weight
Ash Content
12.0
8.0
6.0
NU
N
NU
N
N
N
7» by Weight
Sulfur Content
1.0
1.0
0.9
NU
1.5
NU
0.2
0.2
0.15
N = Negligible
NU = Fuel not used by this type source
-------
in 1968. Of this 9 million tons, 1.1 million was consumed in boilers with
no control devices for particulates. The remaining 7.9 million tons were
controlled by either a mechanical (multiple cyclone) collector or an
electrostatic precipitator. The efficiencies of these controls ranged
from a low of 65 percent with an overloaded mechanical collector to 95
percent with electrostatic precipitators. The average weighted efficiency
of the 7.9 million tons of coal which was controlled was 80 percent. A
total of 1.8 million gallons of distillate fuel oil was also used by the
five power plants. This oil was used for "light off" and flame stabili-
zation of the boilers during start-up conditions.
Air pollutant emissions from fuel combustion at these plants as
well as from all other fuel combustion sources are summarized in Table 10.
The steam-electric plants were the largest sources of sulfur oxides,
particulates and nitrogen oxides in the Study Area. Over 87 percent of the
total nitrogen oxides from stationary fuel combustion, 89 percent of the
particulates, and 83 percent of the nitrogen oxides were attributed to
these five plants.
Industrial
METHODOLOGY: Since in a rapid survey of industrial sources it is
impossible to contact every plant, other techniques must be used to
determine the contribution of industrial fuel combustion sources. In
order to do this, the total quantities of the various fuels used are
determined and the amounts used by the largest industries are found.
The remaining sources are considered collectively as area sources and their
fuel use is based on the difference between the total and the amount
consumed by the largest sources.
The total quantities of residual and distillate fuel oil consumed by
industries were estimated by the North Carolina Oil Fuel Institute and
by the South Carolina Oil Fuel Institute. These were compared to totals
provided by the majority of the acknowledged agencies. Natural gas
numbers were obtained from each of the local suppliers who provided the
breakdown by user category. Total coal consumption by industrial sources
was based solely on questionnaire data or personal contacts made by the
local agencies.
-------
TABLE 10 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM THE COMBUSTION OF FUELS IN
STATIONARY SOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA, 1968 (Tons/Year)
Fuel User Category
Coal
Industrial
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Fuel Oil
Industrial
Steam -Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Gas
Industrial
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL3
Sulfur
Oxides
12,100
171,900
1,700
1,400
187,100
4,500
30
840
1,030
6,400
10
N
N
N
10
193,500
Par tic -
ulates
27,800
246,000
500
1,600
275,900
840
10
280
270
1,400
420
N
100
20
540
277,800
Carbon
Monoxide
1,000
2,200
2,200
1,900
7,300
100
N
70
30
200
10
N
N
N
10
7,500
Hydro-
carbons
300
900
400
400
2,000
100
N
100
30
230
N
N
N
N
N
2,200
Nitrogen
Oxides
6,300
89,900
400
300
96,900
3,600
100
400
1,200
5,300
5,000
N
600
100
5,700
107,900
N = Negligible
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
The quantities of all fuels used by individual industries was found
by the local agencies and then subtracted from the totals to determine
area source fuel use.
It should be noted that fuel combustion by industries include both
fuel used for space heating, and fuel used for process heating. A
national average was used to separate process heating from space heating.
RESULTS: Coal, distillate oil, residual oil and natural gas were
all used by industrial sources in the Study Area. The consumption of these
fuels is summarized in Tables 5 through 8.
Table 10 shows the relative contribution of eacn fuel to the total
emissions from stationary fuel combustion. Industrial sources account
for 8 percent of total sulfur oxide emissions from stationary fuel
combustion, 10 percent of particulates, 14 percent of carbon monoxide,
17 percent of hydrocarbons, and 14 percent of nitrogen oxides.
Residential
METHODOLOGY: Natural gas, distillate fuel oil and coal were the primary
fuels used for residential home heating. There were homes heated by other
fuels, but they represent a small percentage of the total. Data on the
amount of natural gas used for domestic heating was supplied by the local
power companies and compared with the rapid survey technique of estimating
Q
the fuel used for home heating. Distillate oil and coal consumption
data were estimated based on data supplied by local agencies and on the
rapid survey technique.
RESULTS: Table 11 gives an estimate of the number of homes that use
each type fuel in the Study Area. The percentage of the number of homes
that use each type fuel is fairly constant with natural gas being used
in 46 percent of the dwelling units, fuel oil 41 percent and coal 13 percent.
Emissions resulting from residential fuel combustion are relatively
low for all pollutants. However, since coal is not burned efficiently in
homes, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are higher than might be expected.
The contribution to total emissions from stationary fuel combustion by
domestic heating was less than 1 percent for any pollutant except for carbon
monoxide (29%) and hydrocarbons (18%).
-------
TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF DOMESTIC HEATING BY NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
IN THE CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968
Jurisdiction
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Gas ton
Iredell
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Union
North Carolina Portion
Percent pf Total
Chester
Lancaster
York
South Carolina Portion
Percent of Total
GRAND TOTAL
OVERALL PERCENTAGE
Coal
2,300
1,500
3,400
5,300
1,700
1,300
6,400
2,600
1,000
25,500
12%
700
1,100
3,100
4,900
15%
30,400
13%
Fuel Oil
12,000
14,900
6,200
14,200
7,800
3,900
33,100
15,600
7,100
84,800
417o
1,700
3,700
9,300
14,700
45%
99,500
417o
Natural Gas
5,200
4,100
6,200
18,100
5,900
1,500
51,400
4,000
1,100
97,500
477,
3,500
3,600
6,000
13,100
407o
110,600
467o
-------
Commercia1-Ins ti tutional
METHODOLOGY: Commercial and institutional establishments in the Study
Area used all four of the previously mentioned fuels--distillate and
residual oil, natural gas and coal. Data on the total amounts of these
fuels used in the area as well as the consumption at individual establish-
ments were supplied by power companies, fuel associations and the local
agencies.
RESULTS: The use of coal and fuel oil at commercial and institutional
establishments was by far the most significant source of emissions from
this category. The contribution to total stationary fuel combustion emissions
from these establishments was relatively minor.
TRANSPORTATION
Three types of transportation sources of air pollution are considered
in this surveymotor vehicles, aircraft, and railroads. Motor vehicles,
which are by far the most significant source in this category, are further
subdivided according to type of fuelgasoline or diesel.
Motor Vehicles
More than 17 million miles were traveled by motor vehicles in 1968
in the Charlotte Study Area. In the process, 405 million gallons of
gasoline and 73 million gallons of diesel fuel were consumed for highway
purposes. Table 12 shows the miles of travel for gasoline and diesel
vehicles for each county in the Study Area.
Vehicle-mile data for essentially all of the roads in Mecklenburg
County were supplied by the State Highway Department. For Mecklenburg
County, this data was in the form of traffic flow maps which showed average
daily traffic along the roads. In Gaston, Iredell, York, Chester and
Lancaster Counties traffic flow maps were used to determine vehicle miles
in the major cities and gasoline consumption was used to determine county
wide totals. In the remaining counties, vehicle-mile information was not
-------
TABLE 12 VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL FOR MOTOR VEHICLES IN THE
CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968 (Vehicle Miles/Day)
Jurisdiction
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Gas ton
Iredell
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Union
N. C. Subtotal
Chester
Lancaster
York
S. C. Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Gasoline
Vehicle Miles
1,128,000
1,316,000
940,000
2,068,000
1,034,000
461,000
5,170,000
1,222,000
677,000
14,016,000
395,000
658,000
940,000
1,993,000
16,009,000
Diesel
Vehicle Miles
72,000
84,000
60,000
132,000
66,000
29,000
330,000
78,000
43,000
894,000
25,000
42,000
60,000
127,000
1,021,000
Total
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,000,000
2,200,000
1,100,000
490,000
5,500,000
1,300,000
720,000
14,910,000
420,000
700,000
1,000,000
2,120,000
17,030,000
-------
available, and thus gasoline consumption alone was used to find vehicular
emissions.
The contribution to the total motor vehicle pollution by diesel-
powered vehicles was determined by assuming that approximately six percent
of the total vehicle miles traveled were by diesel-powered vehicles. This
was checked by estimating diesel fuel consumption in each county. These
emissions were apportioned on a grid basis by assuming they were proportional
to gasoline emissions.
Emissions from motor vehicles are a function of the speed at which the
vehicle travels. Average speeds of 10-20 mph were assumed for downtown
areas, 20-30 mph for the residential areas, and 30-45 mph for the rural
areas to calculate vehicle emissions.
From all transportation sources, motor vehicles accounted for 92
percent of the sulfur oxides, 86 percent of the particulates, 99 percent
of the carbon monoxide, 95 percent of the hydrocarbons, and 94 percent of
the nitrogen oxides. Gasoline powered motor vehicles contributed a greater
percent of all pollutants than diesel powered motor vehicles. Emissions
from transportation sources are summarized in Table 13.
Aircraft
Table 14 shows the air traffic activity at the largest airports in the
Study Area. An estimate of the number of flights by engine type was
supplied by the traffic controller at each airport and summarized in Table 14.
The air pollutant emissions from aircraft.include all phases of operation
(taxi, take-off, climb out, approach and landing) that take place below
the arbitrarily chosen altitude of 3,500 feet. Emissions at cruise
altitude (above 3,500 feet) are not of concern in an emission inventory.
From all transportation sources, aircraft accounted for 3 percent of the
particulates, 1 percent of the carbon monoxide, 3 percent of the hydro-
carbons and 1 percent, of the nitrogen oxides.
Railroads
Railroad operati&ns (mainly locomotive) consume about 13 million gallons
of diesel fuel per year within the Study Area. This quantity is about
80 percent less than the amount of diesel fuel consumed by motor vehicles.
The majority of this fuel is consumed during switching operations. Diesel
-------
TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION
SOURCES, 1968 (Tons/Year)
Source Category
Motor Vehicles
Gasoline
Diesel
Subtotal
Aircraft
Jet
Piston
Turboprop
Subtotal
Railroads
GRAND TOTAL
Sulfur
Oxides
1,700
1,400
3,100
N
N
N
N
270
3,370
Partic-
ulates
2,200
3,800
6,000
200
30
N
230
750
. 6,980
Carbon
Monoxide
490,300
2,100
492,400
200
6,400
N
6,600
400
499,400
Hydro-
carbons
36,400
4,700
41,100
130
1,200
N
1,330
920
43,350
Nitrogen
Oxides
23,500
7,700
31,200
140
300
N
440
1,510
33,150
-------
TABLE 14 AIR TRAFFIC ACTIVITY AT THE LARGEST AIRPORTS IN THE
CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968 (Flights/Year)8
Type Engine
2 Engine Conventional Jet
3 Engine Fan -Jet
4 Engine Fan -Jet
2 Engine Turboprop
1 Engine Piston
2 Engine, Piston
4 Engine Piston
TOTALS
Douglas
21,200
6,200
1,500
2,200
29,200
20,100
3,700
84,100
Delta Carpenter
__
__
_-
._
2,000 12,000
1,600
_.
2,000 13,600
Brocenbrough
'
--
__
12,000
1,400
--
13,400
a = Flight is defined as a combination of a landing and a takeoff.
-------
fuel consumption data were supplied by each of the major railroads in the
Charlotte area.
Railroad operations contribute about 8 percent of the sulfur oxides and
10 percent of the particulates from all transportation sources. They
account for less than 4 percent of the emissions for any other pollutant.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Approximately 2 million tons of refuse was generated during 1968 within
the Study Area. Table 15 presents a solid waste balance for the Charlotte
Study Area, showing the various methods of disposal and the quantities
disposed of by each method. Only in Mecklenburg County was there no waste
burned as standard practice. In Cleveland and Lincoln Counties there were
no open burning dumps, but there was some backyard burning. In the rest
of the North Carolina Counties, the bulk of the refuse was disposed of in
landfills or non-burning dumps. However, in each of these counties there
were some open burning dumps with Cabarrus and Rowan having the largest
contribution to open burning from dumps. In the South Carolina counties
the most widely used method of disposal was the open burning dump.
For the entire Study Area 1 percent of the refuse was disposed of by
municipal incinerators, 10 percent by on-site incinerators, 72 percent by
landfills or non-burning dumps, 10 percent by open burning dumps and 7
percent by backyard burning. Refuse data for all of the North Carolina
counties were supplied by each local agency. For the South Carolina
counties the South Carolina Board of Health, Solid Waste Division provided
the data.
Incineration
In the Charlotte Study Area there was only one municipal incinerator
used to dispose of solid waste. This was a relatively small incinerator
located in Cleveland County. The amount of refuse disposed of by on-site
incineration was assumed to be approximately 10 percent of the generated
refuse in each county. In all counties the 198,000 tons of refuse burned
by on-site incinerators was treated as an area source and apportioned onto
grids by population. No incinerators were classified as point sources.
-------
TABLE 15 SOLID WASTE BALANCE FOR CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968 (Tons/Year)
to
Political
Jurisdiction
Cabarrus
Catawba
Cleveland
Gaston
Iredell
Lincoln
Mecklenburg
Rowan
Union
N. C. Subtotal
Chester
Lancaster
York
S. C. Subtotal
GRAND TOTALS
Total Refuse
Generated
134,000
154,000
127,400
258,000
124,000
57,000
610,000
138,000
90,000
1,692,400
58,000
80,000
154,000
292,000
1,984,400
Incineration
Municipal On-Site
13,400
-- 15,400
3,900 13,000
25,800
12,400
5,700
61,000
13,200
9,000
3,900 168,900
5,800
8,000
15,400
29,200
3,900 198,100
Landfills or
Non Burning Dumps
90,000
133,800
78,000
186,200
105,000
50,800
549,000
69,000
71,000
1,332,800
29,700
7,000
63,400
100,100
1,432,900
Open Burning
Dumps On-Site
30,600
4,800
26,000
6,600
500
52,300
10,000
156,800
5,100
22,500
29,000
56,600
213,400
NA
--
32,500
20,000
NA
--
--
3,500
NA
30,000
17,400
42,500
46,200
106,100
136,100
-------
The incineration of refuse contributed 59 percent of the total sulfur
oxide emissions from solid waste disposal, 32 percent of the particulates,
26 percent of the carbon monoxide, 2 percent of the nitrogen oxides and
16 percent of the hydrocarbons.
Open Burning
The two major categories of open burning are open burning dumps and
on-site open burning. Open burning dumps were the largest contributors to
the air pollution from solid waste disposal. There were over 40 open burning
dumps in the Study Area, ten of which were classified as point sources.
The open burning of approximately 100,000 tons of waste in backyards was
also a significant factor in solid waste disposal. This 100,000 tons was
treated as area source emissions and apportioned onto grids by population.
'The open burning of refuse contributed 41 percent of total sulfur
oxide emissions from solid waste disposal, 68 percent of the particulates,
74 percent of the carbon monoxide, 98 percent of the nitrogen oxides and
84 percent of the hydrocarbons.
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
The Study Area is characterized by the large number of textile mills.
The operations that take place at these mills are of little concern in an
emission inventory. From an air pollution standpoint the food and agricultural
industry and mineral products industry were by far the most significant
industrial process sources. In the food and agricultural industry the
largest sources were 6 feed and grain mills and elevators, and 2 fertilizer
plants. In thesmineral products industry the largest sources were 2 brick
manufacturers, 7 asphalt batching plants, 1 mining site, and 6 rock processing
operations. The only other large industrial process source was a paper
and pulp mill. Other industries that generated air pollutant emissions
from their processes included 3 small scale gray iron foundries, 1 steel
fabrication plant, 2 chemical plants and numerous conical burners associated
with lumber products. Table 17 persents a summary of the emissions from
the various industrial processes.
Over 2 million tons of brick were manufactured by the two plants in
the Study Area. It was assumed that both of these plants employed c
-------
TABLE 16 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Incineration
Municipal
On-Slte
Subtotal
Open Burning
On-Site
Dump
Subtotal
GRAND TOTAL
Sulfur
Oxides
N
200
200
50
90
140
340
Par tic -
ulates
20
990
1,110
820
1,500
2,320
3,430
Carbon
Monoxide
N
4,360
4,360
4,360
7,950
12,310
16,670
Hydro-
carbons
N
80
80
1,540
2,810
4,350
4,430
Nitrogen
Oxides
N
300
300
560
1,030
1,590
1,890
N^-NSgtigtbleab! e
-------
TABLE 17 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL
PROCESSES, 1968 (Tons/Year)
Type Industry
Sulfur
Oxides
Par tic -
ulates
Carbon
Monoxide
Hydro-
carbons
Nitrogen
Oxides
Mineral Products
Brick Manufacturing
Asphalt Batching
Mining
Rock Processing
Subtotal
Metallurgical
Gray Iron Foundry
Steel Fabrication
Pulp and Paper
Lumber Products
Food and Agricultural
Feed and Grain
Fertilizer
Subtotal
Chemicals
GRAND TOTALS
270
20,000
2,100
5,700
29,500
57,300
900
30
9,100
200
6
1
,200
--
270
,200
--
130
100
--
--
1,300
30
270
3,100
6,300
9,400
1,200
77,200
7,670
230
1,330
-------
some type of control for dust emissions. These plants accounted for 26
percent of the process particulates.
The seven asphalt batching plants in the Study Area produced over 1.2
million tons of hot mix asphalt. These 7 plants accounted for less than
3 percent of the particulates from industrial processes. Approximately
570,000 tons of wet rock were mined at the one mine-site in the Study
Area. The dust emissions from this site accounted for 7 percent of total
process particulates.
Over 4 million tons of rock were processed at the 6 active quarries
in the Study Area. Crushing, screening and other operations at these
plants accounted for 38 percent of the total emissions from industrial
processes.
The area included in the Charlotte Study Area has 6 feed and grain
operations of a significant size. These plants processed more than 650,000
tons of feed and grain in 1968. Most of these plants are equipped with
cyclones to control dust emissions. The primary source of dust emissions
from the mills was the cleaning operations. Receiving, handling, and
storage operations also contributed to the dust emissions. Approximately
4 percent of the particulates from all industrial processes are emitted
from the feed and grain industry.
Approximately 180,000 tons of fertilizer were processed by the two
fertilizer plants in the area. It was assumed that about 3 to 4 percent
of the amount processed was lost as particulate emissions. These two
plants accounted for 8 percent of industrial process particulates.
The remaining 14 percent of the particulate emissions from industrial
processes was distributed among other minor operations as shown in Table 17.
EVAPORATIVE LOSSES
Three source categories were considered for evaporative losses--
automobiles, gasoline storage and handling, and the consumption of solvents.
The hydrocarbon emissions from all sources by evaporative losses are shown
in Table 18.
Automobiles
Automobile evaporation losses include gas tank and carburetor evaporation
-------
TABLE 18 HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM EVAPORATIVE LOSS SOURCES IN
THE CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968 (Tons/Year)
Type of Source Hydrocarbons
Gasoline Storage and Handling 6,500
Automobiles 23,200
Solvent Consumption
Industrial 7,800
Dry Cleaning 2,200
Domestic-Commercial 1,600
GRAND TOTAL 41,300
-------
and engine crankcase blowby. Since 1963, most new automobiles were equipped
with positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valves that reduce hydrocarbon
emissions from the crankcase by about 90 percent. Due to a lag time in the
automobile replacement rate, it was assumed that 20 percent of the auto-
mobiles were not equipped with PCV valves.
The hydrocarbon emissions from automobiles.were calculated from vehicle-
mile data and were apportioned onto grids using the same methods as for
mo.tor vehicles discussed earlier. Evaporative losses from automobiles
accounted for 56 percent of the total hydrocarbon emissions from evapor-
ative losses in the Study Area.
Gasoline Storage and Handling
There are four major points (excluding evaporation from the motor
vehicle) of hydrocarbon emissions in the storage and handling of gasoline.
There are:
1. Breathing and filling losses from storage tanks
2. Filling losses from loading tank conveyances
3. Filling losses from loading underground storage tanks at service
stations.
4. Spillage and filling losses in filling automobile gas tanks at
service stations.
Approximately 470 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel were
stored in the Study Area in 1968. The evaporative losses from this storage
and the subsequent handling accounted for 16 percent of the total evapor-
ative losses.
Consumption of Solvents
This category included the consumption of solvents at dry cleaning
plants, industrial solvent usage and the miscellaneous use of solvents by
small commercial establishments and domestic units. Organic solvents
emitted from these operations were determined by assuming an emission rate
of 4 Ib/capita/year for any cleaning plants, 13 Ib/capita/year for industries
11 12
and 3 Ib/capita/year for miscellaneous consumption. ' The consumption
of solvents by these three categories accounted for 28 percent of the
hydrocarbon emissions from evaporative losses.
-------
EMISSIONS BY JURISDICTION
The previous section presented the air pollutant emissions by source
category. In order to show the contribution of each county to the pollution
in the entire Study Area, their emissions are summarized in Tables 19
through 30.
As can be expected, since power plants play such a big part in the
overall air pollution in the Study Area, the counties with power plants
seem to be the most significant from a sulfur oxide particulate and
nitrogen oxide standpoint.
Because of the higher degree of urbanization than the other counties
and corresponding higher vehicular activity, Mecklenburg County contributes
the majority of the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
-------
TABLE 19 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN CABARRUS COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL8
Sulfur
Oxides
230
20
250
1,590
220
2,040
2,050
10
20
30
--
2,300
Partic-
ulates
450
50
500
3,500
--
80
150
3,730
70
240
310
--
__
4,500
Carbon
Monoxide
35,700
30
35,730
100
--
190
230
520
290
1,300
1,590
--
37,800
Hydro-
carbons
3,010
60
3,070
40
__
50
50
140
N
460
460
--
2,960
6,600
Nitrogen
Oxides
2,320
100
2,420
1,100
90
100
1,290
20
170
190
--
3,900
N = Negligible
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 20 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN CATAWBA COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Road Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL3
Sultur
Oxides
260
20
280
500
42,100
190
100
42,890
10
N
10
43,200
Partic-
ulates
520
60
580
740
32,440
70
50
33,300
80
40
120
3,000
--
37,000
Carbon
Monoxide
39,900
30
39,930
30
550
130
80
790
340
200
540
240
--
41,500
Hydro-
carbons
3,400
70
3,470
10
220
40
20
290
10
70
80
20
3,450
7,300
Nitrogen
Oxides
2,710
120
2,830
560 .
22,200
90
ft
60
22,810
20
30
50
--
--
25,700
N = Negligible
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 21 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN CLEVELAND COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL3
Sulfur
Oxides
20
20
40
900
12,800
250
170
14,120
20
10
30
--
14,200
Par tic -
ulates
40
50
90
1,650
33,300
80
110
35,140
90
210
300
5,860
--
41,400
Carbon
Monoxide
2,720
30
2,750
50
150
280
170
650
290
1,100
1,390
--
4,800
Hydro-
carbons
240
60
300
20
60
60
40
180
N
390
390
1,250
2,100
Nitrogen
Oxides
190
100
290
830
6,110
90
90
7,120
20
140
160
--
--
7,600
N = Negligible
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 22 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN GASTON COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTALS
Sulfur
Oxides
410
40
450
1,510
93,700
420
. 200
95,830
30
20
50
--
--
96,300
Par tic -
ulates
820
100
920
2,200
107,200
150
110
109,660 '
130
370
500
6,880
--
118,000
Carbon
Monoxide
64,250
50
64,300
60
1,230
430
150
1,870
570
1,950
2,520
--
--
68,700
Hydro-
carbons
5,440
120
5,560
30
490
100
30
650
10
690
700
--
5,530
12,400
Nitrogen
Oxides
4,260
190
4,450
1,250
49,400
200
100
50,950
40
250
290
--
55,700
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 23 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN IREDELL COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL3
Sulfur
Oxides
210
20
210
350
--
160
130
640
10
N
10
900
Partic-
ulates
410
50
460
240
--
50
60
350
60
50
110
2,710
--
3,600
Carbon
Monoxide
29,200
30
29,230
10
__ .
140
80
230
270
280
550
--
30,000
Hydro-
carbons
2,550
50
2,600
10
--
30
20
60
N
100
100
--
2,730
5,500
Nitrogen
Oxides
2,130
90
3,220
530
80
100
710
20
40
60
--
--
4,000
N = Negligible
-------
TABLE 24 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN LINCOLN COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL3, i
Sulfur
Oxides
90
10
100
170
0
100
50
320
N
N
N
--
400
Partic-
ulates
180
20
200
120
0
30
20
170
30
. N
30
10
400
Carbon
Monoxide
13,450
10
13,460
10
0
100
20
130
120
20
140
40
--
13,800
Hydro-
carbons
1,160
30
1,190
N
0
20
N
20
N
10
10
N
1,206
2,400
Nitrogen
Oxides
950
40
990
140
0
40
30
210
10
N
10
1,200
N = Negligible
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 25 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN MECKLENBURG COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL3
Sulfur
Oxides
1,040
80
1,120
1,400
600
970
2,970
60
--
60
N
--
4,200
Par tic -
ulates
2,060
460
2,520
2,070
--
240
630
2,940
300
300
25,400
--
31,200
Carbon
Monoxide
186,000
6,700
192,700
80
--
540
640
1,260
1,340
--
1,340
580
--
195,900
Hydro -
carbons
15,050
1,620
16,670
50
--
130
140
320
20
--
20
13,600
30,600
Nitrogen
Oxides
10,600
900
11,500
1,730
--
440
960
3,130
90
--
90
30
--
14,700
N = Negligible
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 26 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN ROWAN COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTALS3
Sulfur
Oxides
240
20
260
1,700
23,300
260
300
25,560
10
30
40
--
--
25,900
Partic-
ulates
490
60
550
3,930
73,000
90
540
77,560
70
440
510
4,380
--
83,000
Carbon
Monoxide
39,200
30
39,230
110
310
220
300
940
300
2,370..
2,670
--
_.
42,800
Hydro-
carbons
3,280
70
3,350
40
120
50
60
270
N
830
830
--
3,300
7,800
Nitrogen
Oxides
2,510
120
3,630
1,300
12,300
100
100
13,800
20
300
320
. __
--
16,800
N = Negligible
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN UNION COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL3
Sulfur
Oxides
140
10
150
170
110
80
360
10
N
10
--
--
500
Partic-
ulates
270
30
300
60
--
40
50
150
50
80
130
19',600
--
20,200
Carbon
Monoxide
20,700
20
20,720
N
--
80
80
160
200
420
620
460
--
22,000
Hydro-
carbons
1,760
40
1,800
N
--
20
20
40
N
150
150
40
1,820
3,800
Nitrogen
Oxides
1,390
70
1,460
160
40
50
250
10
50
60
--
--
1,800
N = Negligible
a = Total have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 28 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN CHESTER COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTALa
Sulfur
Oxides
80
10
90
120
50
40
210
N
10
10
--
--
300
Par tic -
ulates
160
20
180
30
--
20
20
70
30
110
140
--
--
400
Carbon
Monoxide
11,200
10
11,210
N
60
20
80
130
590
720
--
12,000
Hydro-
carbons
970
30
1,000
N
--
10
N
10
N
210
210
__
1,070
2,300
Nitrogen
Oxides
800
40
840
140
--
30
10
180
10
80
90'
--
--
1,100
N = Negligible
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 29 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN LANCASTER COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL3
Sulfur
Oxides
130
10
140
2,700
__
90
70
2,860
10
20
30
--
3,000
Partic-
ulates
260
30
290
10,700
--
30
50
10,780
40
350
390
1,300
__
12,800
Carbon
Monoxide
20,500
10
20,510
200
--
90
80
370
180
1,860
2,040
5,620
__
28,500
Hydro-
carbons
1,740
40
1,780
70
__
20
10
100
N
660
660
--
1,750
''-i,300
Nitrogen
Oxides
1,350
60
1,410
1,510
--
40
10
1,560
10
240
250
....
_..
3,200
N = Negligible
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
TABLE 30 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IN YORK COUNTY, 1968
(Tons/Year)
Source Category
Transportation
Motor Vehicles
Other
Subtotal.
Stationary Fuel
Combustion
Industry
Steam-Electric
Residential
Commercial and
Institutional
Subtotal
Refuse Disposal
Incineration
Open Burning
Subtotal
Industrial Processes
Evaporative Losses
GRAND TOTAL3
Sulfur
Oxides
190
20
210
5,500
--
60
90
5,650
10
30
40
270
--
6,200
Par tic -
ulates
370
60
430
3,830
--
30
50
3,910
80
420
500
9,200
--
14,000
Carbon
Monoxide
29,400
30
29,430
390
.
N
80
470
340
2,210
2,550
740
--
33,200
Hydro-
carbons
2,500
70
2,570
130
--
10
20
160
10
.780
790
170
2,720
6,400
Nitrogen
Oxides
1,940
120
2,060
5,680
--
80
20
5,780
20
290
310
1,350
--
9,500
N = Negligible
a = Totals have been rounded.
-------
EMISSIONS BY GRID
For the purpose of defining the geographical variation of air pollutant
emissions in the Study Area, the resulting emissions were apportioned on
the grid coordinate system. The emissions were divided into two source
groups--point and area sources. Seventy-one point sources are identified
individually with respect to location and emissions. Each of these point
sources emitted more than 0.5 tons per average annual day of any pollutant.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF POINT AND AREA SOURCES
Figure 5 shows the location of all point sources in the area. Collectively
the seventy-one point sources account for 64 percent of the sulfur oxides,
94 percent of the particulates, 70 percent of the nitrogen oxides, and only
4 percent of the carbon monoxide and 4 percent of the hydrocarbons. The
percentage contribution to carbon monoxide emissions is low because motor
vehicles, which are area sources, contribute 93 percent of the total carbon
monoxide emissions. Similarly, the contribution to total hydrocarbon emissions
is low since two groups of area sources, motor vehicles and evaporative losses
are the major sources. Table 31 presents the emissions of point sources.
Each source is identified by source category, grid number and horizontal
and vertical coordinates. The emissions of sulfur oxides, particulates,
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides are shown for an average
annual day, average winter day (December, January, February),and average
summer day (June, July, August). The appendix presents the method of cal-
culating these three averages.
Area sources are sources of emissions that are significant by them-
selves, but as a group may emit a large portion of the areas total pollution.
Examples of area sources are motor vehicles, residences, light commercial
and industrial establishments and backyard burning. The emissions from area
sources have been added to that for point sources to obtain total emissions
from all sources by grid, as shown in Table 32. The emissions from all
sources are also shown for an annual average, winter and summer day.
-------
TABLE 31
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM POINT SOURCES IN THE CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968
TONS/DAY
SOX
PART
CO
HC
NOX
ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
5
2
2
7
5
4
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
6.
GRIDHC
1 5198
4
5
5
9
9
10
11
12
13
73
13
21
21
21
22
23
24
26
26
26
28
30
31
"3
4690
4750
4740
5080
5090
5108
5310
5440
5520
5520
5510
5470
5490
5460
5530
5030
5170
5380
5360
5340
5530
4490
4710
5030
VC
39740
39520
39540
39540
39580
39590
39580
39520
39550
39510
39520
39502
39460
39470
39470
39490
39380
39370
39380
39370
39330
39350
39190
39200
39120
S
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.3
77.8
O.n
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.0
140.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
109.0
W
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
2.7
77.8
0.0
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.0
140.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
109.0
A
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
C .0
0.0
0.2
0.0
1 .9
63.9
0.0
0 .4
0.1
0.3
0.0
115.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
89.6
S
0.64
. 0.49
6.84
1.25
0.82
3.39
1.99
0.07
9. 99
4.55
243.34
0.36
1.04
0.42
0.97
0.28
108.14
0.58
1.99
0.19
0.10
0.11
0.46
15.49
260.40
W
0.64
1.03
6.84
1.25
0.82
3.39
1.99
0.16
9.99
9.43
243.34
0.36
2.15
0.88
0.97
0.23
108.14
0.58
1.99
0.19
0.10
0.11
0.95
15.49
260.40
A
0.64
0.71
6.84
1.25
0.82
3.39
1.99
0.11
9.99
6.50
200.00
0.36
1.49
0.61
0.97
0.28
88. S8
0.58
1.99
0.19
0.10
' 0.11
0.65
15.49
214.1
S
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.10
1.02
1.9b
0.02
0.01
0.46
1.43
1.84
0.00
0.00
1.01
0.53
0.60
0.01
0.00
1.43
W
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02 '
0.00
0.22
1.02
1.95
0.05
0.02
0.46
1.48
1.84
0.00
O.OU
1.01
0.53
0.60
0.02
0.00
1.43
A
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0. 15
0.84
1.95
U.U3
0.01
0.46
1.48
1.51
0.00
0.00
1.01
0.53
0.60
0.01
0.00
1.17
S
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.41
0.69
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.52
0.73
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.18
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.57
W
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.41
0.69
u.oi
0.00
0.09
0.52
0.73
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.18
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.57
A
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
O.U5
0.33
0.69
0.01
0.00
0.09
0.52
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.18
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.47
S
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.73
41.01
0.25
0.16
0.06
0.07
0.19
73.90
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.00
57.52
W
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.78
0.00
1.52
41.01
0.25
0.33
0.13
0.07
0.19
73.90
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.06
0.07
0.14
0.00
57.52
A
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.00
1.05
33.70
0.25
0.23
0.09
0.07
0.19
60.74
C.OO
0.00
0.13
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.00
-------
ID GRID HC VC
2 35 5350 39270
TABLE 31 (cont.)
S .W A SWA
1.9 3.9 2.7 5.17 10.71 7.39
2 37 5380 39170 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.68 1.40 0.97
4 39 4310 39010 42.5 42.5 34.9 111.13 111.13 91.34
2 41 4580 39020
2 41 4580 39020
2 4? 4710 39040
2 42 4620 38970
2 42 4680 38970
2 43 4870 39040
2 45 4970 39060
2 45 4975 39065
7 48 5140 39080
2 54 5110 39030
2 54 5130 39040
2 57 4920 38980
7 60 5060 389RO
7 60 5090 38990
2 61 5140 38980
2 61 5140 38960
2 61 5130 38960
2 f2 5170 38985
? 62 5170 38990
2 6? 5170 38995
2 62 5160 38990
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
c.o
0.0
0.1
a.i
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.3
C.O
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.2
3.2
0.2
0.0
0.36 0.76 0.52
3.41 3.41 3.41
2.8? 2.84 2.83
0.77 1.60 1.10
C.O 12.29 12.29 12.29
0.61 1.27 0.87
0.79 1.63 1.13
0.55 0.55 0.55
0*00 0.00 O.UO
0.0 14.00 14.00 14.00
0.0 19.00 19.00 19.00
2.18 4.52 3.12
0.62 0.62 0.62
0*00 0.00 0.00
2.10 2.10 2.10
0.74 0.76 0.75
0.79 0.79 0.79
0.58 1.21 0.83
0.49 l.ul Q./Q
0.58 1.20 0.83
2.10 2.11 2.10
4 64 4980 38940 203.3 203.3 167.0 96.9R 96.98 79.71
2 69 5240 39090 0.0 C.O 3.U 9.99 V.W 9.9V
7 69 5250 38970 0.0 C.O O.C 0.00 0.00 O.JO
5 71 4780 33830 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.19 0.19 0.19
5 71 4790 38720 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.25 0.25 0.25
S
0.13
0.02
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
1.76
0.00
0.00
0.05
14.24
1.33
0.00
0.00
1.58
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
2.67
0.00
0.25
1.04
1.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
W
.28
.05
.50
.01
.00
.00
.03
.00
.02
.03
.00
.76
.00
.00
.10
.24
.83
.00
.00
.58
.03
.02
.02
.00
.67
.00
.25
.04
.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
1
A
.19
.03
.41
.01
.00
.00
.02
.00
.02
.02
.00
.76
.00
.00
.07
.24
.83
0.00
0
1
0
(J
0
-------
ID GRID HC VC
2 73 5010 3RR80
5 ~"* 5040 38730
2 75 5407 387 3
2 75 5530 38720
2 75 5405 38710
2 7B 4980 38630
2 7fi 4960 38660
2 fil 5010 38690
2 81 5080 38530
2 81 5070 33530
5 85 4810 38380
2 86 5190 384 0
2 86 5140 38410
5 86 5180 38?80
2 87 5220 38410
2 K7 5210 33?90
5 87 5210 38420
S
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
3.7
6.4
2.4
0.0
0.0
4.?
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
w
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4.9
8.2
3.1
0.0
0.0
8.8
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
4.2
7.1
2.7
0.0
0 .0
6.1
0.0
0 .0
0.6
0.0
0.0
A
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
4.2
7.1
2.7
0.0
0 .0
6.1
0.0
0 .0
0.6
0.0
0.0
S
20.
0.
0.
0.
52.
1.
1.
3.
25.
0.
0.
18.
2.
0.
1.
1.
0.
w
00
10
88
20
49
17
59
12
61
20
09
03
50
14
90
04
10
20
0
0
0
52
2
2
3
25
0
0
37
2
0
3
1
6
.00
.10
.88
.20
.49
.42
.03
.98
'08
.20
.09
.42
.50
.14
.93
.04
.10
TABLE
A
20
0
0
0
52
1
1
3
25
0
0
25
2
0
2
1
0
.00
.10
.88
.20
.49
.67
.77
.46
.72
.20
.09
.83
.SO
.14
.71
.U4
.10
31 (cont.)
S
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
.00
.57
.00
.24
.00
.02
.29
.51
.76
.27
.51
.33
.00
.75
.03
.39
.58
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
W
.00
.57
.00
.24
.00
.04
.38
.65
.77
.27
.51
.70
.00
.75
.07
.39
.58
A
0.00
0.57
0.00
1.24
0.00
0.03
0.33
0.57
0.76
1.27
0.51
0.48
U.OO
0.75
0.05
15. 39
0.58
S W A S W A
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.07 0.07
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.30 0.20
0.09 0.12 0.11 1.99 2.54 2.21
0.17 0.21 0.18 4.37 6.22 5.41
0.38 0.39 0.38 9.61 12.21 10.65
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.18 0.18 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.06
0.11 0.23 0.16 2.40 4.97 3.43
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07' 0.07
0.26 0.26 0.26 0.09 0.09 0.09
0.01 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.49 0.34
0.00 0.00 O.UO O.Oo 0.00 0.00'
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.07 0.07
ID KEY
2 = Industrial
4 = Steam-Electric Utility
5 = Dump
-------
TABLE 32 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM ALL SOURCES IN THE CHARLOTTE STUDY AREA, 1968
TOMS/DAY
(Sq. Mi.)
GRID AREA
1 154.4
2 33.ft
3 33.6
' 3 a.. 6
5 33.5
6 154.4
7 3H.6
8 38.6
9 33.6
10 38.6
11 154.4
12 38.6
13 33.6
14 154.4
15 154.4
16 154.4
17 33.5
Ifi 33.6
19 38.6
20 33.6
21 33.6
72 38.6
23 33.6
24 33.6
?5 33.6
SOX
SWA
0.2 0.5 0.3
O.C 0.0 O.C
0 .0 .') . 1 0.1
0.7 1.6 1.1
0.4 O.o 0.6
0.3 0.6 0.4
0.1 0.3 0.2
0.1 0.3 0 . ^
0.3 0.7 0.4
0.3 0.7 0.5
0.3 0.7 0.5
0.1 0.2 0.1
79.2 30.7 66.0
0.1 0.? 0.2
0.4 0.9 0.6
0.4 l.n 0.6
C. 0 0.1 0.1
o.i 0.2 n.i
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.0 0.1 0.1
2.0 4.0 7.8
0.7 0.5 0.3
140.4 140.4 115.4
0.3 0.7 0.4
0.1 0.4 0.2
PART
S W A
0.9 1.0 0.9
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1 O.i
1.5 2.4 1.9
S. P. 9.0 8.9
0.4 0.6 0.5
0.7 0.3 0.2
0.7 0.2 0.2
4.6 4.8 4.7
2.4 2.6 2.5
0.4 0.6 0.4
10.1 10.1 1u.1
24R.3 753.2 206.9
0.1 0.2 0.2
0.6 0.8 0.6
0.7 0.9 0.8
0.1 U.I 0.1
0.1 0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1 U.I
0.1 0.1 0.1
4.6 7.6 5.8
0.6 0.7 0.6
108.2 108.2 38.9
1.0 1.1 1.0
0.2 0.3 0.2
CO
S './ A
9.3 7.8 b.6
!!.0 0.0 0.0
1.7 1.5 i.6
45.3 37.7 41.5
24.5 20.4 22.5
14.7 12.3 13.5
S.6 7,2 7.9
7.4 6.2 6.b
17.9 15.0 16.4
18. £ 15.b 1 I.3
8.0 6.8 7.4
3.5 3.U 3.2
5.0 4.8 4.7
3.5 3.0 3.2
?0.1 16.8 IB.5
73.3 19.5 21.4
2.1 1.8 2.0
4.6 3.°. 4.2
2.6 2.2 2.4
1.7 1.4 1.6
54.7 46.1 50.3
13.7 11.6 12.6
2.5 2.4 2.1
14.5 12.2 13.3
6.9 5.8 6.3
HC
S W A
1.9 1.7 1.3
0 . !! '.; .0 0.0
0.3 0.3 0.3
6.8 6.0 6.4
4.1 3.6 3.8
2.8 2 '* ? . 6
1.5 1.3 1.4
1.3 1.1 1.2
3.0 2.7 2.9
3.2 2.8 3.0
1.5 1.4 1.5
0.6 0.5 0.6
1.5 1.5 1.4
0.7 0.7 0.7
3.7 3.3 3.5
4.3 3.8 4.1
0.4 0.3 0.4
0.9 0.3 0.3
0.5 0.4 0.5
0.3 0.3 0.3
3.5 7.5 8.0
2.4 2.2 2.3
0.9 0.8 0.7
2.7 2.4 2.6
1.3 1.1 1.2
NOX
SWA
1.0 1.1 1.0
C. 0 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.2 0.2
3.1 3.2 3.1
1.9 1.9 1.9
1.4 1.4 l./t
0.7 0.3 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
1.5" 1.6 1.5
1.6 1.7 1.6
1.1 1.6 1.3
0.3 0.3 0.3
42.2 43-0 35.2
0.3 0.4 0.4
1.8 1.9 1.8
2.1 2.2 2.1
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.4 0.5 0.5
0.2 0.3 0.2
0.2 0.2 0.2
4.1 4.6 4.3
1.0 1.1 1.0
74.0 74.0 60.8
1.4 1.5 1.4
-------
GRID
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
3c
4C
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
4fi
49
50
51
52
53
54
AREA
38.
38.
38.
154.
154.
154.
154.
154.
38.
38.
38.
38.
154.
38.
38.
154.
154.
38.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.4
109.5
0.1
2.5
0.1
1.3
0.3
42.6
0.1
1.1
0.9
1.4
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.5
TABLE 32 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM ALL SOURCES (cont.)
SOx PART CO
1.4 0.9 3.3 3.8 3.5 23.3 19.8 21.5 4.7
0.2
0.2
0.1
1.4
1.7
0.9
110.1
0.2
5.9
0.2
3.2
0.9
42. S
0.?
3.2
2.3
3.6
0.1
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.7
1.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
1.1
0.6
90.3
0.1
3.9
0.1
2.0
0.5
35.1
0.1
1.9
1.4
2.3
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.0
16.5
1.2
260.8
0.2
6.2
0.1
2.8
0.4
111.3
0.1
5.6
17.1
2.1
0.1
1.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.6
33.8
0.2
0.3
0.1
1.9
16.9
2.0
261.0
0.2
12.3
0.2
5.4
0.7
111.4
0.2
7.6
18.5
3.2
0.1
2.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.7
34.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.3
16.7
1.5
214.5
0.2
8.6
0.1
.3.8
0.5
91.5
(J.I
6.4
17.7
2.5
0.1
2.0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.6
34.0
4.8
4.6
2.3
5.3
44.4
22.7
11.2
8.0
48.9
6.1
30.4
16.8
1.0
0.3
6.3
20.0
73.6
2.2
10.9
4.4
7.9
6.5
8.4
22.4
26.8
22.3
27.9
43.1
4.0
3.9
2.0
5.1
37.4
18.8
9.7
6.8
41.6
5.1
26.0
14.4
1.1
0.4
7.1
17.6
61.9
1.9
9.2
3.7
6.5
5.7
6.9
18.7
22.4
18.3
23.1
36.0
4.4
4.2
2.2
5.1
40.8
2U.7
10.2
7.4
45.1
5.6
28.1
15.5
1.0
0.4
6.5
18.7
67.6
2. 1
10.0
4.0
7.2
6.1
7.6
20.5
24.6
20.3
25.5
39.5
0.7
0.9
0.4
1.5
7.7
3.7
2.6
1.4
7.7
1.2
5.3
3.2
0.5
0.2
2.8
4.3
11.6
0.5
1.9
0.7
1.1
1.1
1.2
3.6
4.3
3.1
4.3
6.7
HC
4.2
0.6
0.8
0.4
1.5
6.8
3.2
2.4
1.3
7.0
1.0
4.8
2.9
0.5
0.2
3.0
4.0
10.3
0.4
1.7
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
3.1
3.7
2.6
3.6
5.9
4.4
0.7
0.9
0.4
1.5
7.2
3.4
2.4
1.3
7.3
1.1
5.0
3.0
0.4
0.2
2.3
4.1
10.9
0.4
1.8
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.1
3.4
4.0
2.9
3.9
6.3
2.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.8
3.6
2.0
58.8
0.6
4.5
0.5
2.8
1.5
20.5
0.1
1.6
2.4
5.3
0.2
1.1
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.6
1.8
2.0
1.5
2.2
2.9
NOx
2.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
1.3
3.7
2.0
59.1
0.5
6.0
0.5
3.5
1.6
20.6
0.1
2.7
3.0
5.8
0.2
1.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
2.0
1.9
1.3
2.3
3.4
2.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
1.0
3.6
2.0
48.7
0.5
5.0
0.5
3.1
1.5
16.9
0.1
2.0
2.6
5.4
0.2
1.2
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
1.9
1.9
1.4
2.2
-------
TABLE 32 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM ALL SOURCES (cont.)
UI5J5V
56
57
5fl
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
" 69
ON
° 70
71
'2
:s
7'
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
'978
38.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
38.6
38.6
38.6
38.6
154.4
154.4
154.4
0.4
0.1
1.6'
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.6
1.4
0.0
203.3
o.u
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.0
4.9
0.0
0.1
9.0
0.2
0.1
tf/9
0.7
3.5
0.3
0.1
0.8
4.?
3.9
0.1
203.4
0.0
0.4
1.6
1.0
1.6
0.2
0.8
0.5
1.4
0.7
0.9
0.2
0.1
7.0
0.0
0.1
11.7
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
2.4
0.1
0.0
0.5
2.6
2.4
0.0
167.1
0.0
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.0
5.7
0.0
0.1
10.1
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.3
2.3
0.1
0.1
1.2
5.7
5.9
0.0
97.0
0.0
0.2
1.1
0.9
10.9
0.1
1.4
0.5
21.5
0.5
54.2
0.2
0.1
4.8
0.0
0.2
29.3
0.3
0.2
17JT
0.6
4.7
0.2
0.1
1.4
7.1
9.2
0.0
97.0
O.U
0.3
2.1
1.5
11.4
0.2
2.0
0.7
22.2
0.6
54.4
0.3
0.1
7.6
0.0
0.2
30.4
0.4
0.3
1.1
0.4
3.3
0.2
0.1
1.3
6.3
7.2
0.0
79.7
0.0
0.3
1.5
1.1
11.1
0.1
1.7
0.6
21.8
0.5
54.3
0.2
0.1
5.9
0.0
0.2
29.7
0.4
0.3
CO
39.8 33.0 36.3
1.9 2.3 2.0
3.0 2.8 2.9
1*4 1.4 1.4
3.7 3.0 3.3
40.7 36.6 38.6
125.6 104.8 115.0
87.0 72.8 79.8
0.8 0.7 0.7
2.8 2.6 2.3
3.4 2.8 3.1
10.2 8.5 9.3
33.9 28.6 31.1
24.0 20.2 22.0
50.4 42.3 46.3
4.1 3.5 3.8
12.7 11.1 11.9
10.7 9.0 9.8
40.7 33.9 37.2
?4.3 20.3 22.3
27.4 23.3 25.3
3.2 2.7 2.9
2.0 1.6 1.8
42.9 35.9 39.4
0.5 0.4 0.5
3.1 2. -6 2.9
19.5 16.7 18.1
14.1 11.9 12.9
11.1 9.3 10.2
HC
6.2 5.3 5.7
1.4 1.6 1.5
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.5 0.5
7.1 6.6 6.8
16.5 14.5 15.5
12.1 10.7 11.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
1.2 1.2 1.0
0.5 0.4 0.4
1.5 1.3 1.4
5.8 5.2 5.5
3.9 3.5 3.7
8.6 7.6 8.1
0.8 0.7 0.7
3.2 3.0 3.1
2.2 2.0 2.1
7.2 6.2 6.7
4.2 3.7 3.9
4.7 4.2 4.4
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.4 0.3 0.3
7.3 6.5 6.9
0.1 0.1 0.1
0.6 0.6 0.6
3.2 2.9 3.0
2.4 2.2 2.3
1.9 1.7 1.8
NOx
3.3 3.7 3.4
0.5 1.0 0.7
0.7 1.3 0.9
0.2 0.4 0.3
0.3 0.3 0.3
2.8 3.0 2.8
7.1 8.8 7.7
4.5 5.9 5.0
0.1 0.1 0.1
#**# *#** 88.0
0.2 0.2 0.2
0.8 0.9 0.8
2.3 2.9 2.5
1.6 1.9 1.7
3.8 4.1 3.8
0.3 0.4 0.3
1.4 1.6 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0
3.6 3.7 3.6
1.9 1.9 1.8
2.1 2.1 2.1
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.1 0.1 0.1
5.1 5.9 5.4
0.0 0*0 0.0
0.2 0.2 0.2
15.7 19.5 17.2
1.1 1.0 1.0
-------
GRID
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
AREA
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
154.4
0.1
0.5
4.6
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
TABLE 32
SOx
0.3 0.2
1.0
9.5
1.8
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.7
6.5
1.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
SUMMARY
0.2
1.1
21.2
3.8
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
OF AIR
PART
0.2
1.9
40.7
6.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
POLLUTANT
0.2
1.4
29.0
4.7
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
EMISSIONS FROM ALL SOURCES (cent
CO
6.2 5.3 5.7 1.2
17.5
22.0
42«4
3.1
1.5
2.3
6.3
6.8
14.8
19.0
38.3
2.7
1.2
1.9
5.3
5.9
16.1
20.4
40.3
2.9
1.3
2.1
5.8
6.3
3.2
3.8
4.9
0.6
0.3
0.4
1.2
1.5
' HC
1.1
2.8
3.5
4.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
1.1
1.3
1.1
3.0
3.6
4.6
0.6
0.3
0.4
1.2
1.4
0.6
1.6
4.0
2.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.7
NOx
0.6
1.7
6.6
2.4
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.6
5.0
2.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.7
-------
EMISSION DENSITIES
In order to provide a visual representation of the emissions of pollutants
by grids, emission density maps have been prepared. Emission densities were
obtained by summing the annual area and poinu source emissions for each
grid and dividing this total by the land area of the grid. Figures 6
through 10 show the variation in emission densities for the respective
grids throughout the Study Area. As expected the emissions generally
follow the pattern and degree of urbanization. Emission densities for
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons are higher in the grids with the higher
populations and corresponding higher vehicular activity. Sulfur oxides,
particulates and nitrogen oxide emission densities are highest in the
grids where power plants are located. Particulate emissions tend to
follow the general pattern of the location of industrial and other sources
as shown in Figure 5.
-------
500000
A
520000
09900000
,160000 470000 480000
2 T3" "IS
440.POO
_]/ lL_.._i QV~I7L *
«9 ' 120 21 12? k9
395QOOO
-13930000
INDUSTRIAL
STEAM-ELECTRIC
O DUMP
D INSTITUTION
A AIRPORT
Figure 5. Point source locations for Charlotte study area.
-------
500000
46000° 470 000 480000
; ' "" '1 "" 16
r*1
\
I] IREDEU CO.
I '
II
-09900000
540000
"" "39700°°°
CAfAWRfl
/
/
X-
ROWAN CO.
N.
,X
>'*
::: 0.5 - 1.0
580°00
^3950°00
Figure 6. Sulfur oxide emission density from all sources in the Charlotte study area.
-------
500000
520000
B9900000
460000 47QOOO 480000
; "1"
CATAWSA PIVfP
560000
44QOOO
130 £00
540000
39700000
WOfTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA f
__- ^3850000
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS,^
ton/mi 2-day
J ^ 3830000
0.20 - 1.0
1.0 - 9.0
580000
3950000
Figure 7. Participate emission density from all sources in the Charlotte study area.
65
-------
520000
-fl9900°00
460000 47QOOO 480000
i; " " ?3"-
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS,1,
ton/mi 2-
580000
3950000
3930 °°0
Figure 8. Carbon monoxide emission density from all sources in the Charlotte study area.
-------
50000p_
~
520000
-B9900000
IREDEU CO.
4600"° 470000 480000
-_,.
560000
440000
- 7=rJ '39 30 0 0 0
430,000
'35 '
580000
3950000
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS,
ton/mi ^"day
EH
0.05 - 0.10
0.10 - 0.50
Eg:-;! 0.50 - i.o
1.0 - 2.0
Figure 9. Hydrocarbon emission density from all sources in the Charlotte study area.
-------
520000
-09900000
460 000 470000 480000
580000
3950000
NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS,S
ton/mi 2-doy U
rn o - o.os
Kl 0.05-0.10
|H 0.10 - 0.50
!H 0.50 - 1.0
Hi 1.0 - 9.0
3930000
Figure 10. Nitrogen oxide emission density from all sources In the Charlotte study area.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Ozolins, GuntLs and Raymond Smith, Rapid Survey Techniques for Estimating
Community Air Pollution Emissions. DHEW, PHS, October 1966.
2. Duprey, R. L., Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, United
States, DHEW, PHS, 1968.
3. Population Estimates, State of South Carolina Auditors Office and the
State of North Carolina Department of Water and Air Resources.
4. Local Climatological Data, United States Department of Commerce, 1968.
5. North Carolina Directory of Manufacturing Firms, 1968. North Carolina
Department of Labor.
6. Thirty-Third Annual Report of the Department of Labor of the State of
South Carolina, 1968.
7. Steam Electric Plant Factors, National Coal Association, 1969.
8. Ozolins, op. cit^., pp. 43-45.
9. Retail Trade Special Report, Census of Business, United States Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1963.
10. Highway Statistics/1967, United States Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Public Roads.
11. Duprey, op. cit., p. 46.
12. St. Louis Interstate Air Pollution Study, Phase II, Air Pollutant Emission
Inventory, 1966, p. 38.
-------
APPENDIX A
METHOD FOR CALCULATING SUMMER, WINTER AND ANNUAL
AVERAGE EMISSIONS FOR FUEL CONSUMPTION IN STATIONARY SOURCES
YEARLY AVERAGE (A)
A = Fuel Consumed x Emission Factor (E. F. )
Days of Operation
e.g. A plant consumed 100,000 tons of coal in 1967 while operating
365 days. The total degree days for the area was 4,800 and
2,800 for the three winter months. The plant was estimated
to use 15 percent of the fuel for space heating and 85 percent
for process heating. From this information, the annual
average emission for carbon monoxide would be the following:
A = 100,000 Tons/year x 3 Ibs. CO/Ton coal
365 Days/year x 2,000 Ib./Ton
A = 0.41 Ton/Day
WINTER AVERAGE (W)
W = Fuel Consumed x E.F.
Days of Winter Operation
i Fuel Consumed x E.F.
"*" 365 X
W = ["100,000 x 2.800 0 .
1 90 x 4,800 *
Winter Degree Days
x
"L Fuel Used
Total Degree Days for space heating
% Fuel used for process heating
100.000
365
0.85 I
2,000
W = 0.49 Ton/Day
SUMMER AVERAGE (S)
S = Fuel Consumed x E.F.
Fuel Used
Summer Degree Days
Days of Summer Operation X Total Degree Days for space heating
Fuel Consumed x E.F.
365
S = I 100.000
P
0
Fuel used for process heating
100,000
90 4,800
S = 0.35 Ton/Day
n ._
0.15
x 0.85
2,000
-------
APPENDIX B
METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS
Multiply
By..
To Obtain
Feet
Miles
Square Feet
Square Miles
0.3048
1609
0.0929
2.59
Meters
Meters
Square meters
Square kilometers
Pounds
Pounds
Tons (metric)
Tons (short)
Tons (short)
453.6
453.6/104
1.103
907.2
.9072
Grains
Tons (metric)
Tons (short)
Kilograms
Tons (metric)
To Obtain
By.
Divide
------- |