Analysis of Targeted Emission-Reduction Possibilities in the El Paso del Norte

Analysis of Targeted Emission-Reduction Possibilities in the El Paso del Norte

Teresa Montoya1, Ph.D., P.E.; Arturo Woocay2, Ph.D.; Jose Mares3, Ph.D.; Wen-Whai Li1, Ph.D., P.E.

The 59th Meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee for the Improvement of Air Quality in theCiudad Juárez, Chihuahua / El Paso, Texas / Doña Ana County, New México Air Basin

Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua/El Paso, Texas

January 23, 2014

1Dept. Of Civil Eng. UTEP; 2ITCJ; 3UACJ

AcknowledgementsThis 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 roads2. Fugitive PM emissions from a cement plant3. VOC emissions from gasoline fueling stations4. 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% paved37% 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

• 10 soil sampling sites• Samples analyzed at UACJ Soil Lab and Grupo LEC Laboratory

1.5 PM10 Emission Estimates

Total PM10 Emissions (ton/day)

Wind Erosion TAZ roads emissions Major roads emissions Direct Vehicle

5.75 57.61 266.98 0.016296

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/m2 for 5-cm flexible pavement (Pesos)– $640/m2 for 15-cm concrete pavement (Pesos)

Pavement Option Roads Total Area (m2) Total Cost (US dollars)

Flexible Pavement 1,285,276 $49,521,700

Concrete 1,285,276 $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.

2.2 The Facilities

2.3 The Operations

2.4 The Process Flow Chart

2.6 Itemized PM10 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 PM10 EmissionsActivity

Particle SizePM2.5 PM5 PM10 PM15 PM30

1

Unpaved Quarry Dump-Truck (52.5 tons, 1.6 km, 3,530 trips) 0.98 9.77 29.85

Cement Production Processes 0.01 4.31 2.82

Paved Outside Sale Heavy -Load Trucks (36.8 tons, 2.6 km, 2,290 trips) 0.33 1.34 1.67 7.00

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 0.33 0.41 1.71

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 Crusher 0.004 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06

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 0.02 0.08

Paved Average Mirosilax Clinker Dump Truck (52.5 tons, 0.32 km, 52 trips) 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.03

Paved Average Heavy Load Trucks (36.8 tons, 0.09km, 33 trips) 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.003

TOTAL [Tons in Peek Month] 1.46 0.02 16.80 2.14 44.29

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 SurveyBackground 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 OperationsGas

Station

PEMEX Survey (Daily Reports)

Balanced Submerged

Filling

Underground tank breathing and emptying

Displacement losses

(uncontrolled)

Spillage Balanced Submerged

Filling

Underground tank breathing and emptying

Displacement losses

(uncontrolled)

Spillage

1248 0.232 0.696 7.656 0.464 0.128 0.383 4.213 0.255

3485 0.149 0.446 4.910 0.298 0.154 0.461 5.069 0.307

4331 0.140 0.420 4.620 0.280 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

4571 0.307 0.922 10.138 0.614 0.117 0.351 3.865 0.234

5704 0.117 0.350 3.854 0.234 0.030 0.089 0.982 0.060

6269 0.079 0.238 2.614 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

6515 0.110 0.329 3.617 0.219 0.040 0.119 1.305 0.079

6643 0.067 0.202 2.217 0.134 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

6912 0.114 0.343 3.775 0.229 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

6977 0.164 0.492 5.412 0.328 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

8076* 3.091* 0.269 2.957 0.179 0.755* 0.066 0.722 0.044

8546 0.162 0.485 5.333 0.323 0.069 0.207 2.281 0.138

8669 0.258 0.773 8.501 0.515 0.012 0.036 0.393 0.024

8792 0.085 0.254 2.798 0.170 0.036 0.109 1.204 0.073

9123 0.118 0.353 3.881 0.235 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

9138 0.218 0.653 7.181 0.435 0.038 0.113 1.248 0.076

9962 0.263 0.790 8.685 0.526 0.269 0.806 8.870 0.538

Totals 2.671 8.013 88.148 5.342 1.647 2.741 30.153 1.827

1 VOC annual emissions at every stage (tons/year), developed using AP-422 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 vehiclewaiting time as reported in the surveys

StationTotal Sale

(Liters)No. of Gasoline

pumpsVehicles waiting

Service time (min)

1248 5,800,002 16 3 2

3485 3,719,989 4 2 1

4331 3,500,050 8 0 0

4571 7,679,990 12 2 5

5704 2,920,027 4 2 1

6269 1,979,951 4 2 1

6515 2,740,008 4 2 3

6643 1,679877 4 1 0

6912 2,859,871 8 1 0

6977 4,099,909 6 N/A N/A

8076 2,240,008 4 2 3

8546 4,039,841 6 6 5

8669 6,440,024 3 4 1

8792 2,119,815 4 1 2

9123 2,939,909 N/A N/A N/A

9138 5,439,830 16 4 1

9962 6,579,876 6 4 3

Mean 3,928,175 6.81 2.33 1.87

Median 3,500,050 5.00 2.00 1.00

SD 1,819,873 4.25 1.59 1.64

Process Vehicle Type Emission

(tons/year)

Running Exhaust LDGV 2.60

Evaporative Emissions LDGV 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 SurveyPaint 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 Shop Operation Conditions Taller Lopez Painting booth and Hood Auto climas mult. Carrocería y pintura Painting booth and Hood Body Work Paint Painting booth and Hood Carrocería L.A. Body Shop Open air Taller Meny Open air MM Competición Painting booth and Hood Carrocería Lalos Open air Vucano Painting booth and Hood Hummer Painting booth and Hood Segaso Painting booth and Hood Hummer Automotriz Painting booth, filter and Hood Automax Painting booth and filter Impacto Painting booth and filter Multiservicios RT Painting 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 Urethane 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 43.49 435.58 27.66 27794.02 241838.38 23201.49 292.83 0.3228Second Scenario 113.00 879.50 85.50 72217.17 488307.2 71718.26 632.24 0.696

Third Scenario 36 383.5 31.5 23007.24 212923.04 26422.52 262.35 0.289

Scenario Total solvent used (lts/mo.)

VOC Emissions (Kg/mo.)

VOC Emissions (tons/mo.)

First scenario 1345 1033.72 1.14

Second Scenario 3771 2896.54 3.19

Third Scenario 417 320.30 0.35

• 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 [email protected]