Presentation on theme: "Analysis of Targeted Emission-Reduction Possibilities in the El Paso del Norte Teresa Montoya 1, Ph.D., P.E.; Arturo Woocay 2, Ph.D.; Jose Mares 3, Ph.D.;"— Presentation transcript:
Analysis of Targeted Emission-Reduction Possibilities in the El Paso del Norte Teresa Montoya 1, Ph.D., P.E.; Arturo Woocay 2, Ph.D.; Jose Mares 3, Ph.D.; Wen-Whai Li 1, Ph.D., P.E. The 59 th Meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee for the Improvement of Air Quality in the Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua / El Paso, Texas / Doña Ana County, New México Air Basin Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua/El Paso, Texas January 23, 2014 1 Dept. Of Civil Eng. UTEP; 2 ITCJ; 3 UACJ
Acknowledgements This study was supported by a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). We thanks the following persons for making this study possible: Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E., TCEQ Victor Valenzuela, Ph.D., formerly TCEQ Gerardo Tarin, SEMARNAT Julio Enrique Flores, Grupo de Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC) Erick Ayala, Fernando Perez, and Samuel Hernandez; ITCJ Marina Mendoza Fong, Eduardo Aguirre Zavala, Jesús Alarcón Reyes, and José Manuel Pacheco Varela of UACJ Mayra Chavez, UTEP Air Quality Research Group The contents of this report are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the TCEQ or UTEP
Four Targeted Source Categories 1.Fugitive PM emissions from unpaved roads 2.Fugitive PM emissions from a cement plant 3.VOC emissions from gasoline fueling stations 4.VOC emissions from automotive paint and body shops
1. PM Emission form Unpaved Roads in Ciudad Juárez 1.1 Objective: Develop an estimate of PM contributions to ambient air as a result of traffic on unpaved roads in Ciudad Juarez and estimate the cost of paving and maintaining such roads.
1.2 Road Dust Emission Scenarios i)Vehicle –enhanced dust emissions from major streets ii)Vehicle –enhanced dust emissions from minor streets in residential neighborhoods iii)Direct emissions from vehicle tail pipes, tire and brake wear iv)Wind erosion from unprotected surface of unpaved roads
1.3 Unpaved Roads Inventory 63% paved 37% unpaved TDM roadway networkIMIP unpaved/paved roads network TDM network was aligned with the IMIP network. Minor arterial unpaved roads were identified
1.4 Silt Loading Content and Soil Moisture 10 soil sampling sites Securing the sieves in the sift. After the first 10 minutes of sifting the bottom end with the material that passed the 200 mesh is retired. The bottom bin, previously sifted,is weighted. 10 soil sampling sites Samples analyzed at UACJ Soil Lab and Grupo LEC Laboratory
1.7 Mitigation Strategies and Cost Water or chemicals to increase moisture content Paving – Paving costs estimated utilizing tables from IMIP – Two paving options: 5-cm and 15-cm depth asphalt – $482/m 2 for 5-cm flexible pavement (Pesos) – $640/m 2 for 15-cm concrete pavement (Pesos) Pavement OptionRoads Total Area (m 2 )Total Cost (US dollars) Flexible Pavement1,285,276$49,521,700 Concrete1,285,276$65,664,772
2. PM Emission from the Ciudad Juárez Cement Plant 2.1 Objective: Develop an estimate of emissions from all PM generating processes at the combined quarry and rock-crushing facility and estimate possible reduction in PM emission considering operational modifications as control strategies.
2.6 Itemized PM 10 Emissions – Cement Plant Process PM Emissions – PM Emissions from Vehicle Movement on Unpaved Industrial Roads – PM Emissions from Vehicle Movement on Paved Roads – PM Emissions from Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles
2.7 Summary of PM 10 Emissions Activity Particle Size PM 2.5 PM 5 PM 10 PM 15 PM 30 1 Unpaved Quarry Dump-Truck (52.5 tons, 1.6 km, 3,530 trips)0.98 9.77 29.85 Cement Production Processes0.01 4.31 2.82 Paved Outside Sale Heavy -Load Trucks (36.8 tons, 2.6 km, 2,290 trips)0.33 1.341.677.00 Unpaved Heavy-Load Trucks (36.8 tons, 0.15 km Unpaved, 2,290)0.05 0.51 1.55 Paved Lim-Prod Dump-Truck (52.5 tons, 3.5 km, 290 trips)0.08 0.330.411.71 Active Storage Pile Area 2 and 3 0.21 0.45 Inactive Storage Pile Area 2 and 3 0.08 0.16 Unpaved Conveyor System Dump-Truck (52.5 tons, 0.15 km, 290 trips)0.01 0.08 0.23 Unpaved Aggregate Dump-Truck (39.75 tons, 210 meters, 176 trips)0.005 0.05 0.15 Active Storage Pile Area 1 0.04 0.09 Aggregate Handling to Pettibon Crusher0.0040.020.030.040.06 Unpaved Mirosilax Clinker Dump Truck (52.5 tons, 0.21 km, 52 trips)0.002 0.02 0.06 Inactive Storage Pile Area 1 0.02 0.03 Paved Average Heavy Load Trucks (36.8 tons, 0.54km, 132 trips)0.004 0.02 0.08 Paved Average Mirosilax Clinker Dump Truck (52.5 tons, 0.32 km, 52 trips)0.001 0.01 0.03 Paved Average Heavy Load Trucks (36.8 tons, 0.09km, 33 trips)0.000 0.001 0.003 TOTAL [Tons in Peek Month]1.460.0216.802.1444.29
2.8 Possible Mitigation Strategies Sanders et al 1997 reported that the use of dust suppressants reduced fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roadways by 50 to 75% and was more protective of the roadway surface by reducing aggregate losses by 42 to 61%. Depending on the cost of aggregates, the breakeven point for the ADT varies slightly. The three recommended chemicals are: Lignosulfonate, CaCl2, and MgCL2
2.9 Costs of Possible Strategies Using this figure and an estimated of 1 mile of unpaved road within the Juarez cement plant, dust emissions from the unpaved road sections within the plant can be reduced by ~50% for a cost of $6,000. Costs for application of dust suppressants on unpaved roads in terms of average daily traffic (ADT), reproduced from Sanders et al (1997).
3. VOC Emissions from Gasoline Fueling Stations 3.1 Objective: Update information on VOC emissions from gasoline fueling stations in Ciudad Juárez using new survey on 10 percent of the stations.
3.2 Gasoline Station Survey Background Information PEMEX 2011 COA ERG 2011 Study Lorena Mendoza (MS Thesis, ITCJ; 2012) A total of 171 stations Gasoline Station Survey 17 stations Information Collected – Interviewer’s basic information – Description and location of the fuel station – Operations information – Emission control practices – Notes and comments from the interviewer – Explanations of emission control practice
3.4 VOC Emissions from Operations Gas Station PEMEXSurvey (Daily Reports) Balanced Submerged Filling Underground tank breathing and emptying Displacement losses (uncontrolled) Spillage Balanced Submerged Filling Underground tank breathing and emptying Displacemen t losses (uncontrolled ) Spillage 12480.2320.6967.6560.4640.1280.3834.2130.255 34850.1490.4464.9100.2980.1540.4615.0690.307 43310.1400.4204.6200.2800.000 45710.3070.92210.1380.6140.1170.3513.8650.234 57040.1170.3503.8540.2340.0300.0890.9820.060 62690.0790.2382.6140.1580.000 65150.1100.3293.6170.2190.0400.1191.3050.079 66430.0670.2022.2170.1340.000 69120.1140.3433.7750.2290.000 69770.1640.4925.4120.3280.000 8076*3.091*0.2692.9570.1790.755*0.0660.7220.044 85460.1620.4855.3330.3230.0690.2072.2810.138 86690.2580.7738.5010.5150.0120.0360.3930.024 87920.0850.2542.7980.1700.0360.1091.2040.073 91230.1180.3533.8810.2350.000 91380.2180.6537.1810.4350.0380.1131.2480.076 99620.2630.7908.6850.5260.2690.8068.8700.538 Totals2.6718.01388.1485.3421.6472.74130.1531.827 1 VOC annual emissions at every stage (tons/year), developed using AP-42 2 Emissions calculated based on Magna gasoline sales data reported by PEMEX and in the surveys (in liters per month)
3.5 VOC Emissions From Idling Vehicles Number of vehicles waiting as well as vehicle waiting time as reported in the surveys Station Total Sale (Liters) No. of Gasoline pumps Vehicles waiting Service time (min) 12485,800,0021632 34853,719,989421 43313,500,050800 45717,679,9901225 57042,920,027421 62691,979,951421 65152,740,008423 66431,679877410 69122,859,871810 69774,099,9096N/A 80762,240,008423 85464,039,841665 86696,440,024341 87922,119,815412 91232,939,909N/A 91385,439,8301641 99626,579,876643 Mean3,928,1756.812.331.87 Median3,500,0505.002.001.00 SD1,819,8734.251.591.64 ProcessVehicle Type Emission (tons/year) Running ExhaustLDGV 2.60 Evaporative EmissionsLDGV 3.56 Total 6.16 Total VOC Emissions from Idling vehicles at Gasoline Stations, estimated using USEPA MOVES 2010 Model
3.6 Summary of VOC Emissions from Gasoline Stations Stage 1 control reduces ~95% of the VOC emissions at a gas station Most of the Juarez gas stations are equipped with Stage 1 control. Cost for installing Stage 1 control is ~$10-15K per station Juarez gas stations are not equipped with Stage 2 control $40K per station for a maximum of 18 refueling guns for Stage 2 control (or ~$2.2K for installing 1 gas refueling gun)
4. VOC Emissions from Automobile Paint and Body Shops 4.1 Objective: Identify and quantify the VOC emissions from automotive paint and body shops in Ciudad Juárez Recommend methods to reduce VOC emissions
4.2 Auto Body Paint Shop Survey Paint Shop Survey 50 shops identified 14 shops surveyed Information Collected – Interviewer’s basic information – Description and location of the shop – Operations information – Emission control practices – Notes and comments from the interviewer – Explanations of emission control practice Background Information UACJ 2011 ERG 2011 US EPA 1999 Varying shop number and locations Mostly small, family oriented operations
4.3 Use of Paint Guns and Booths Paint ShopOperation Conditions Taller LopezPainting booth and Hood Auto climas mult. Carrocería y pinturaPainting booth and Hood Body Work PaintPainting booth and Hood Carrocería L.A. Body ShopOpen air Taller MenyOpen air MM CompeticiónPainting booth and Hood Carrocería LalosOpen air VucanoPainting booth and Hood HummerPainting booth and Hood SegasoPainting booth and Hood Hummer AutomotrizPainting booth, filter and Hood AutomaxPainting booth and filter ImpactoPainting booth and filter Multiservicios RTPainting booth and filter Paint shop Standard paint gun LVLP paint guns Taller Lopez ● Auto climas mult. Carrocería y pintura ● ● Body Work Paint ● Carrocería L.A. Body Shop ● Taller Meny ● MM Competición ● Carrocería Lalos ● Vucano ● Hummer ● Segaso ● Hummer Automotriz ● Automax ● Impacto ● Multiservicios RT ●
4.4 VOC Emissions from Paint Shops Scenario Total Enamel used (lts/mo.) Total Urethan e used (lts/mo.) Total other used (lts/mo.) Enamel VOC Emissions (gr/mo.) Urethane VOC Emissions (gr/mo.) Other VOC Emissions (gr/mo.) VOC Emissions (Kg/mo.) VOC Emissions (tons/mo.) First Scenario 43.49435.5827.6627794.02241838.3823201.49292.830.3228 Second Scenario 113.00879.5085.5072217.17488307.271718.26632.240.696 Third Scenario 36383.531.5 23007.24 212923.0426422.52262.350.289 Scenario Total solvent used (lts/mo.) VOC Emissions (Kg/mo.) VOC Emissions (tons/mo.) First scenario13451033.721.14 Second Scenario37712896.543.19 Third Scenario417320.300.35 VOC Emissions from Painting in Ciudad Juarez VOC Emissions from Solvent Use in Ciudad Juarez Three Emissions Scenarios 1.Average Amount of paints and distillates as estimated from the survey 2.Maximum amount 3.Minimum amount
4.5 Summary of VOC Emissions from Auto Paint and Body Shops Relatively insignificant emissions Difficult to regulate and control Participation of local and State environmental authorities are critical for a timely, reliable shop emissions inventory Good housekeeping at the shops is required Financial subsidies would be most effective in promoting use of solvent recovery systems and paint guns
Questions and Comments? Thank you! firstname.lastname@example.org
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.