Charleston, South Carolina Air Quality Maintenance Planning And Analysis Annex: Analysis Of Industrial Process Fugitive Emissions


EPA-904/9-78-010
CHARLESTON,
SOUTH CAROLINA
AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE
PLANNING AND ANALYSIS
ANNEX:
ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30308

-------
EPA 904/9-78-010
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE
PLANNING AND ANALYSIS ANNEX:
ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
CONTRACT NO. 68-02-1380
TASK ORDER 12
Submitted to
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency-
Region IV, 345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Submitted by
Engineering-Science
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
r .crfio® ^	kgenc}
June 13, 1978

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 904/9-78-010
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Charleston, South Carolina Air Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis:Annex: Analysis of Industrial
Prpcess Fugitive Emissions
5. REPORT DATE
June 13. 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Glenn T. Reed
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND AODRESS
Engineering-Science
7903 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Task Order 12
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1380
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, 345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
In a report published earlier (EPA 904/9-77-013), the results of air quality
dispersion modeling for Charleston, South Carolina were presented. To improve these
results, additional modeling was done using data for industrial process fugitive par-
ticulate emissions. Including these emission estimates was shown to significantly
improve the modeling results. Sensitivity analysis of the emissions estimates was
used to obtain a probable range of emissions estimates. The Air Quality Display
Model (AQDM) was the model used.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group I
Air Pollution
Air Quality Maintenance
Suspended Particulates
Air Quality Modeling
Fugitive Emissions


18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES I
11

20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE 1
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) previous edition is obsolete
i

-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall cany a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., date of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented'at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS .. . .
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area oi human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments tnat wm tollow
the primary posting(s).
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited. Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) (Revers.)

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSIONS	1
EMISSIONS	i
INITIAL MODELING RESULTS	4
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS	7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	9
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 INDUSTRIAL PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSIONS IN
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA	2
TABLE 2 SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS TO MONITORING SITES
FROM FUGITIVE EMISSIONS	5
TABLE 3 SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO MONITORING STATIONS
FROM SELECTED SOURCE TYPES	6
TABLE 4 RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES	8
ii

-------
ANNEX
ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRIAL PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
In an earlier effort, area and point sources of particulate emissions
in Charleston, South Carolina were modeled using Air Quality Display Model
(AQDM). Seven monitoring sites were used in this earlier analysis to
calibrate the model. Predicted air quality compared well with observed
TSP concentrations at all but two of these monitoring sites: Meeting Street -
Pittsburgh Avenue and State Ports Authority. A major conclusion of that
effort was that these two sites were being influenced by substantial low
level sources near each site* An inspection program was undertaken to
identify and quantify fugitive emissions from industrial sources that
might be responsible for high TSP concentrations at these two sites.
EMISSIONS
The inspection reports from this effort were reviewed to identify
sources and emissions not included in the original modeling effort. Reports
were available for the W. R. Grace Co., Koppers Co., Etiwan Fertilizer,
Ford's Redi-Mix, Bird & Sons, Airco Alloys, State Ports Authority ( a grain
elevator not previously included in the point source inventory), Charleston
Naval Shipyard, and Westvaco. Estimates of fugitive emissions were included
in the reports for W. R. Grace Co., Koppers Co., Airco Alloys, and Westvaco.
For the other plants, fugitive emission sources were identified and process
throughputs given. Emission factors from Technical Guidance for Control of
Industrial Process Fugitive Emissions (EPA Publication No. 450/3-77-010)
were used to estimate emissions from these sources. A summary of emissions
by plant and by source is given in Table 1. In addition, a 100 ton per
year area source northwest of the Meeting Street - Pittsburgh Avenue site
was modeled to obtain possible contributions from unpaved roads in that
area upon the monitor.
1

-------
TABLE 1
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA
PLANT
SOURCE
EMISSIONS
(TONS/YEAR)
W. R. Grace Co."
Koppers Co."
Etiwan Fertilizer
Ford's Redi-Mix
Swift Agricultural
Chemicals
Birds & Sons
Airco Alloys
Loading NSP
Screening NSP
Conveying and storing NSP
Second loading NSP
Bagging NSP
Bulk loading NSP
Yard traffic
Total
Lumber milling
Yard traffic
Total
Unloading fertilizer ^
Screening and bagging
Total
Storage piles
Yard traffic
Total
Open Emission Sources
Ore unloading
Ore storage
Crushing, batching & delivery
to the furnace
Product screening
ESP dust disposal
Total
Building Vent Emission Sources
Tapping
Pouring & cooling
Slag storate
Bed breaking
Total
11
2
1
5
4
8
0.6
31.6
10
10
16
16
29
29
20
79
39
4
16
158
33
127
13
	4_
181
2

-------
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED^
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
IN CHARLESTON. SOUTH CAROLINA
PLANT
SOURCE
EMISSIONS
(TONS/YEAR)
State Ports Authority
(Grain Elevator)
Charleston Naval
Shipyard
Westvaco^"
Elevated Sources
Grain cleaning & screening
Grain drying
Transfer & conveying
Total
Ground Level Sources
Truck unloading
Railcar unloading
Ship loading
Rail loading
Vehicle movement
Yard traffic
Total
Dowtherm headers"
Spray dryers.
Yard traffic
Total
142
58
57
257
78
22
209
9
12
42
372
1.5
16
	7	
24.5
Emissions estimates from "Source Inspections in Selected Region IV Non-
Attainment Areas to Determine Capabilities of Reducing TSP Emissions".
2
3
4
5
6
No estimates made because of lack of data.
Plant shut down.
Estimated using throughputs from inspection reports and emission factors
from Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugitive
Emissions (EPA-450/3-77-010).
Should be included in point source inventory.
Estimate not based on best emission factor. Using a better factor, the
estimate would be less than 1 ton per year.
3

-------
INITIAL MODELING RESULTS
These industrial process fugitive particulate emissions (IPFPE) were
modeled using AQDM. The contributions from IPFPE were manually added to
contributions from previously modeled emissions. The same meteorological
data as used before were used to model these sources. The emissions at
Airco were divided into open and building vent emissions. The emissions
from the grain elevator at the State Ports Authority were divided into
ground level emissions and elevated emissions. A release height of 100 ft.
was used for the building vent emissions at Alloy and the elevated emissions
at the State Ports Authority grain elevator. The release height used for
the other sources was 10 feet unless similar sources in the point source
inventory had higher heights. The additional emissions at Westvaco were not
included because most of these emissions were from Dowtherm heaters and spray
driers which should be included in the point source inventory. The estimate
of yard traffic emissions at Westvaco (7 tons per year) was determined using
the unpaved road emission factor even though all plant roads are paved. An
independent estimate, using an emission factor developed for paved roads, was
0.38 tons per year. Because of this discrepancy, yard emissions at Westvaco
were not modeled. An area of one (1.0) square kilometers was assigned to
each fugitive source except that an area of two (2.0) square kilometers was
used for the unpaved roads northwest of the Meeting Street - Pittsburgh
Avenue site.
Table 2 gives the concentration at each monitoring site which could
be attributable to fugitive emission sources. The contributions range from
3	3
1 yg/m to 24 yg/m . In order to compare these contributions to those from
other types of sources, see Table 3.
A regression analysis was performed for the new modeling results. The
resulting linear regression equation was:
Y = -10.872 + 1.959X
o
The correlation index (R ) was 0.827. This equation represents an improve-
ment over the original regression equation in that the Y-intercept was
4

-------
TABLE ?
SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS TO MONITORING SITES
FROM FUGITIVE EMISSIONS1
(MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER)



INDUSTRIAL PROCESS FUGITIVE
EMISSION
SOURCES


MONITORING
STATION
W. R.
GRACE
KOPPERS
BIRD
ETIWAN & SONS
AIRCO
OPEN BLDG.
GRND.
SPA
ELEV.
UNPVD.
RDS.
TOTAL
Bushy Park
0.1
-
-
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.8
0.2
2.9
Charleston Health
Dept.
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.5
3.7
James Island
0.1
-
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
2.1
Mount Pleasant
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.9
Jenkins Street
0.1
-
0.1
0.3
0.4
3.9
2.6
0.2
7.7
Meeting St.-
Pitts. Ave.
0.7
0.3
0.2 0.1
5.0
3.1
1.2
0.8
3.1
14.5
State Ports
Authority
0.1
-
0.1
0.4
0.4
18.6
3.7
0.2
23.5
All values are annual arithmetic averages.

-------
TABLE 3
SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO MONITORING STATIONS
FROM SELECTED SOURCE TYPES1
(MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
ON
TYPES OF SOURCES
OBSERVED	FUGITIVE	POINT AND	UNPAVED2	PAVED2
MONITORING STATIONS	CONCENTRATIONS SOURCES	AREA SRCS	ROADS	ROADS
Bushy Park 48	3	27	16	3
Charleston Health Dept. 53	4	40	15	9
James Island 48	2	29	15	4
Mount Pleasant 37	1	23	14	2
Jenkins Street 57	8	40	15	6
Meeting St.-Pitts. Ave. 106	15	51	14	8
State Ports Authority 90	24	53	16	6
1	All values are annual arithmetic averages.
2
The emissions for paved and unpaved roads were adjusted.

-------
reduced and the slope was brought nearer to 1.00. Yet, the results are
still unsatisfactory because of the negative Y-intercept and the large
slope.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The emissions estimates for industrial process fugitive emissions are
far from exact. Most of the emission factors are rated D or E on a scale of
A-E with E being the least accurate factors. In addition, known fugitive
emission sources, such as yard traffic, are still missing from the inventory.
Thus, there is considerable latitude for testing the sensitivity of the TSP
concentrations predicted by^AQDM to revisions in the industrial process
fugitive emission estimates. Similar analyses have proven useful in the
past for adjusting emission estimates for paved and unpaved roads. Usually,
such adjustments can significantly improve calibration results.
Because of the significant gradient in predicted concentrations between
the various monitoring stations, it was felt that a sensitivity analysis might
provide some useful insights into the TSP attainment problem in Charleston.
A number of regression analyses were performed with varying multipliers of
fugitive emissions estimates. Table A-4 shows the results of these analyses.
As can be seen from this table, the regression coefficients can be
significantly improved if the fugitive emission estimates are increased.
In this case, quadrupling the emissions at Airco may be unsupportable based
upon the inspection reports because reasonable emission factors appear to
have been used. Yet, these estimates still do not include emissions from
yard traffic. In the original effort, no emissions for unpaved roads were
estimated for this area. The 100 tons per year used in this modeling
exercise was an arbitrary value. No data exists to indicate that the
emissions from unpaved roads could not be 400 tons per year. For the grain
elevator, the emissions were calculated using emission factors in the middle
of the broad range of factors. Were one to use the highest values in the
range, the emissions estimates would be doubled. Although it appears reason-
able that the actual emissions could be greater than those estimated, there is
no conclusive evidence that they are.
7

-------
TABLE 4
RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
ANALYSIS CONDITION
Double all fugitive emission
estimates
Triple all fugitive emission
estimates
Multiply all fugitive emission
estimates by a factor of 2.5
Double only the emissions for Airco
and the unpaved roads near Meeting
St.-Pitts. Ave.
Triple only the emissions for Airco
and the unpaved roads near Meeting
St.-Pitts. Ave.
Triple the emissions for Airco and
the unpaved roads near Meeting St.-
Pitts. Ave. and double the emissions
from the SPA grain elevator
Quadruple the emissions for Airco and
the unpaved roads near Meeting St.-
Pitts. Ave. and double the emissions
from the SPA grain elevator
CORRELATION
Y-INTERCEPT	SLOPE	INDEX
9.007	1.175	0.839
18.470	0.821	0.826
14.482	0.967	0.839
-5.266	1.699	0.916
1.916	1.428	0.927
8.934	1.137	0.920
10.962	1.041	0.964
8

-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn from this analysis of industrial
process fugitive emissions in Charleston, South Carolina:
1.	Substantial improvements in calibration can be achieved by
including estimates of industrial process fugitive emissions.
2.	The TSP nonattainment problem in Charleston is limited to an
area near the monitoring sites at Meeting Street and Pittsburgh
Avenue and at the State Ports Authority. The violations may be
primarily due to indistrial process fugitive emissions in the
area. Yet, these emissions still are not adequately quantified.
(The recommendations for quantifying these emissions which were
given in the earlier report are still the best approach.)
3.	If certain assumptions are made concerning the emission levels of
certain fugitive sources, the AQDM can be calibrated for Charleston,
South Carolina.
Based upon these conclusions, it is recommended that DHEC continue to investi-
gate methods for controlling industrial process fugitive emissions in Charles-
ton. Further efforts to quantify these fugitive emissions could also prove
useful to DHEC. Nothing in this analysis contradicts the earlier conclusions
and recommendations.
9

-------