Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0443-0239
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-07-15T04:00Z

RE: One more modeling question. and updates to Illinois' Lead Emissions

Sprague, Jeff 

to:

Kaleel, Rob, Andy Chang

04/05/2010 12:30 PM

Cc:

"Sprague, Jeff", "Asselmeier, Buzz"	

 

 

From:	"Sprague, Jeff" <Jeff.Sprague@Illinois.gov>

	To:	"Kaleel, Rob" <Rob.Kaleel@Illinois.gov>, Andy Chang/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

	Cc:	"Sprague, Jeff" <Jeff.Sprague@Illinois.gov>, "Asselmeier, Buzz"
<Buzz.Asselmeier@Illinois.gov>

	

Andy,

   Yes, the modeling-related questions are fairly easy to answer:

 

Question #1: Was the air dispersion modeling based on potential or
actual emission? 

Response: The U.S. Steel – Granite City Works emissions were based
upon the facility’s reported actual emissions.

 

Question #2: Were fugitive emissions or re-entrainment of dust factored
into your modeling or analyses? If so, how were they considered?

Response:  Modeled fugitive lead emission sources included uncaptured
Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) roof monitor emissions and coke battery door
emissions. They were treated as volume sources, and in total represented
17 discrete modeling input file entries. Lead emission estimates from
“re-entrainment of dust” from roadways, stockpiles, or other
traditional fugitive sources were not available for this facility, and
thus not modeled. Recent chemical analyses of “grab samples” for
slag crushing, coal pulverizing, and on-site roadway dust yielded
results in which lead (Pb) was below instrument (XRF and ICPMS)
detection levels.

 

Jeff Sprague

Air Quality Planning Section

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

217-524-4692

  HYPERLINK "mailto:Jeff.Sprague@illinois.gov" 
Jeff.Sprague@illinois.gov