United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Office of Research and
Development
&EPA
Superfund
EPA/540/2-85/003 Nov. 1985
Handbook
Dust Control at
Hazardous
Waste Sites
-------
-------
EPA/540/2-85/003
November 1985
HANDBOOK
DUST CONTROL AT
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
by
Keith D. Rosbury
PEI Associates, Inc.
Golden, CO 80401
Contract No. 68-02-3512
Project Officer
Stephen C. James
Land Pollution Control Division
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
HAZARDOUS WASTE ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Mate-
rials Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3512 and Interagency Agreement No.
RW21930805-1 to PEI Associates, Inc. It has been subject to the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved
for publication. The contents reflect the views and policies of the Agency.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use..
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial
products and practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of
solid and hazardous wastes. These materials, if improperly dealt with, can
threaten both public health and the environment. Abandoned waste sites and
accidental releases of toxic and hazardous substances to the environment also
have important environmental and public health implications. The Hazardous
Waste Engineering Research Laboratory assists in providing an authoritative
and defensible engineering basis for assessing and solving these problems.
Its products support the policies, programs, and regulations of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the permitting and other responsibilities of State
and local governments, and the needs of both large and small businesses in
handling their wastes responsibly and economically.
This report presents information useful in identifying sources of and
controlling contaminated fugitive dust originating from contaminated land
surfaces. The handbook is intended for use by hazardous waste site managers
and is organized around three major dust reentrainment mechanisms. Control
of vehicle reentrainment emissions, cleanup activity emissions, and wind
erosion emissions are discussed.
David 6. Stephen, Director
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
m
-------
ABSTRACT
This handbook describes methods of controlling contaminated fugitive
dust originating from contaminated land surfaces. The contaminated dust may
be reentrained by three basic mechanisms: vehicle reentrainment, cleanup
activities, and wind erosion.
The use of this handbook will allow hazardous waste site managers to,
first, assess what type of dust emission mechanism may be at work at the site
and, second, formulate a plan to control that dust. Subjects covered under
vehicle emissions include quantification of emissions, proper roadbed con-
struction, the use of chemical dust suppressants, and proper housekeeping
practices. Subjects covered under active cleanup and wind erosion emissions
also include quantification of emissions as well as the use of water and
chemically amended sprays in controlling emissions. Windscreens, liners, and
mulches are also discussed as means of controlling wind erosion emissions.
Cost data are included for all control strategies.
The handbook contains information on equipment decontamination and
worker protection, in addition to a discussion of possible non-air impacts
arising from the use of!dust suppressant measures.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-3512 by
PEI Associates, Inc., under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract
Figures and Tables
Acknowledgments
1. Introduction
2. Control of Emissions from Vehicle Reentrainment
2.1 Dust Producing Mechanisms
2.2 Quantification of Emissions
2.3 Principles of Control
2.3.1 Unpaved Roads
2.3.2 Paved Roads
2.4 Fugitive Dust Control Methods and Costs
2.4.1 Unpaved Roads
Watering
Chemical Dust Suppressants
Roadway Preparation
Spray Equipment
Costs
Vehicular Speed Control
Housekeeping Practices
Paving
2.4.2 Paved Roads
Manual Cleaning
Mechanical Sweeping
Vacuum Sweeping
Street Flushers
Housekeeping Practices
Summary
2.5 Control Effectiveness
2.5.1 Unpaved Roads
Wateri ng/Surfactant
Chemical Dust Suppressants
Chemicals versus Water
2.5.2 Paved Roads
3. Control of Emissions from Soil Movement
3.1 Dust Producing Mechanisms and Principles of
Control
m
iv
vii
viii
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
2-6
2-6
2-6
2-17
2-17
2-17
2-18
2-18
2-18
2-18
2-18
2-19
2-19
2-19
2-19
2-19
2-22
2-23
2-23
3-1
3-1
-------
Contents (continued)
3.1.1 Bulldozers
3.1.2 Front-End Loaders
3.1.3 Soil Drop
3.2 Quantification of Emissions
3.2.1 Bulldozers
3.2.2 Front-End Loader and Soil Drop
3.3 Principles of Emission Control
3.3.1 Bull dozers/Front-End Loaders
3.3.2 Material Drop
3.4 Available Control Products
3.4.1 Application Methods
3.4.2 Effectiveness
Control of Emissions From Wind Erosion
4.1 Dust Producing Mechanisms
4.2 Quantification of Emissions
4.2.1 Exposed Areas
4.2.2 Storage Piles
4.3 Principles of Emission Control
4.4 Available Control Products and Their
Application
4.4.1 Liners and Geotextiles
4.4.2 Liquid Chemicals
4.4.3 Mulches
4.4.4 Windscreens
Screen Height
Distance From Screen to Pile
Screen Length
Screen Porosity
Terrain Roughness
4.5 Control Effectiveness
4.5.1 Exposed Areas
4.5.2 Storage Piles
Chemical Dust Suppressants
Windscreens
Formulation of a Dust Control Plan
5.1 Identification of Dust Sources
5.2 Identification Dust Control Methods to be Used
5.3 Development of the Implementation Plan
5.4 Development of Inspection, Record Keeping and
Monitoring Program
5.4.1 Inspection and Recordkeeping
5.4.2 Monitoring
Allocation of Sufficient Resources
5.5
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-4
3-8
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-3
4-3
4-13
4-14
4-14
4-14
4-14
4-15
4-15
4-15
4-15
4-15
4-19
4-19
4-19
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-4
5-4
5-4
5-5
5-6
Equipment Decontamination and Worker Protection
Non-Air Impacts From The Use of Dust Suppressant
Measures
-------
FIGURES
Number
4-1
4-2
Crust Formed by Chemical Dust Suppressant
Wind Velocity Pattern Above a Mown Field
TABLES
Page
4-21
4-22
Number
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-1
Proper Size Gradation for Unpaved Road Surface
Results of Improper Size Gradation
Best Chemical Dust Suppressant Control Type by
Road Surface Size Gradation
Dust Suppressants For Unpaved Roads
Assumptions for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Preliminary Cost-Effectiveness Comparison to
Achieve 50 Percent Control
Comparison of Measured Control Efficiencies
Chemicals Versus Water As a Dust Control
Measure
Soil Movement Dust Suppressants
Summary of Control Effectiveness Results
Exposed Area and Storage Pile Dust Suppressants
Exposed Area Test Plots
Other Results on Initial Eight Plots
Tested July 20
Results of Dust Suppressant Wind Tunnel Study
Potential Dust Control Alternatives
Page
2-3
2-3
2-5
2-7
2-15
2-16
2-20
2-24
3-5
3-9
4-4
4-17
4-18
4-20
5-3
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The draft version of this report was prepared by PEI Associates, Inc.,
Golden, Colorado, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract
No. 68-02-3512. The EPA Project Officer was Mr. Stephen C. James. Addition-
al funding and assistance were provided by the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency under Interagency Agreement No. RW21930805-1. Ms. Donna
Koltuniak served as the Army's Project Officer. The authors appreciate the
support of both Project Officers and all others involved in the study.
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Spills, waste disposal, and various industrial operations can contaminate
land surfaces with toxic chemicals. Soil particles from these contaminated
surfaces can, in turn, be entrained into the air, transported cffsite by the
wind, and result in human exposure by direct inhalation. Indirect exposure
also-can result if these particulates are deposited in agricultural fields,
pastures, or waterways and thereby enter the human food chain. Two factors
enhance this exposure route: 1) many of the environmentally troublesome com-
pounds are tightly bound to particles; and 2) conditions at many surface-
contaminated sites favor wind erosion, such as sparse vegetative cover and
high levels of activity that disturb the surface.
The intent of this handbook is to assist hazardous waste site managers in
identifying sources of fugitive dust and controlling that dust.
Contaminated soil can be reentrained to the air by three basic
mechanisms:
1)
2)
Reentrainment by moving vehicles (rubber tired or tracked vehicles)
on paved or unpaved roads
Cleanup activities (movement of soil by dozers, loading by front-end
loaders)
3) Wind erosion
These three mechanisms cen act separately or in any combination. For example,
a site awaiting cleanup may be fenced and inaccessible to men or machinery;
however, wind erosion is still possible. During cleanup activities, all three
mechanisms may be at work. Different dust suppressant techniques are used to
treat each mechanism.
This handbook is organized around the three major dust reentrainment
mechanisms. Section 2 describes vehicle reentrainment emissions and control,
Section 3 discusses cleanup activity emissions and control, and Section 4
1-1
-------
discusses wind erosion emissions and control. Section 5 covers the
preparation of a dust control plan. In Appendix A, matters relating to safe
practices during and after dust suppressant application are discussed.
1-2
-------
SECTION 2
CONTROL OF DUST REENTRAINED
BY VEHICLE MOVEMENT
2.1 DUST PRODUCING MECHANISMS
Moving vehicles entrain dust in two ways: 1) the action of the tire
grinds the road surface and forces particles backwards and up, and 2) the wind
currents created by the moving vehicle cause dust from the roadway and the
shoulder to be lifted up. Thus, both the road and the road shoulder must be
treated. Unpaved roads must be as compacted (no loose particles) as possible
to minimize the amount of loose particles to be reentrained; paved roads must
be kept clear of windblown dust and spills. In both cases, the shoulders
along the roadway must be as compacted as possible to make it difficult for
wind currents to entrain particles.
2.2 QUANTIFICATION OF EMISSIONS
The following equation can be used to determine the emission factor for
an uncontrolled unpaved road (EPA 1982a):
E = k(5
.9) (,!)
0.7
0.5
(Eq. 2-1)
where
E
k
s
S
W
w
Emissions, Ib of _< 30-micrometer particles
Particle size multiplier (dimensionless) = 0.80
Silt (particles <70 urn) content of road surface material,
Mean vehicle speed, mph
Mean vehicle weight, tons
Mean number of wheels
The following equation can be used to determine the emission factor for paved
roads (EPA 1982a):
E = k(0.090) I
(Eq. 2-2)
2-1
-------
where E = Emissions, Ib of _< 30-micrometer particles
k = Particle size multiplier (dimensionless) = 0.86
I = Industrial augmentation factor (dimensionless),
ranging from 1.0 to 7.0, usually 3.5
n = Number of traffic lanes
s = Surface material silt content, %
L = Surface dust loading, Ib/mile
W = Average vehicle weight, tons
Particles £30 micrometers in size are the particles likely to stay in the
air at distances greater than several hundred yards from the source.
Particles greater than 100 micrometers usually settle out within 20 to 30 feet
of the edge of the road. Particles 30 to 100 micrometers in size are likely
to settle out within a few hundred feet of the road.
An examination of the variables in the equation enables one to analyze
the factors that influence dust emissions. Emissions from unpaved roads
increase with increases in the silt content in the road surface material,
vehicle speed, vehicle weight, and the number of wheels. Emissions from paved
roads increase with increases in the silt content of the surface material, the
quantity of material on the road, and vehicle weight. Although speed is also
probably a factor on paved roads, it did not meet the statistical requirements
for entry into the equation.
2.3
PRINCIPLES OF CONTROL
2.3.1 Unpaved Roads
Fugitive dust from unpaved roads is made up of fine soil particles
coming out of the roadway, and dust suppressants act to compact these parti-
cles together to keep them from being entrained in the air. Such compaction
is highly dependent on the size gradation of the aggregate materials in a
roadway. A road surface will not compact unless the range of particle sizes
from small to large is in the correct proportion. This proper size gradation
for an unpaved roadway surface is shown in Table 2-1„ and the results of
improper size gradation are shown in Table 2-2.
As indicated in Table 2-2, proper compaction cannot be achieved with any
of the conditions listed. With too much gravel, relatively little dust will
occur (until tires grind the gravel down to silt size particles), but the
aggregate will be pushed to the side of the road. Any applied dust suppres-
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. PROPER SIZE GRADATION FOR UNPAVED ROAD SURFACE
Sieve size % Passing
Material
in excess
Gravel
Sand
Silt/clay
1 in
3/4 in
3/8 in
No. 4
No. 10
No. 40
No. 200
TABLE
Bearing
capacity
Good
Poor
Very
poor
100
85-100
65-100
55-85
40-70
25-45
10-25
Soil type
Gravel
Sand
Clay, silt
2-2. RESULTS OF IMPROPER SIZE GRADATION
Amount
of dust When wet
Little OK
Some Soft
Large Mud/ruts/
slippery
Action of dust
suppressant
Drains through top level of soil.
Provides little control.
Drains through top level of soil.
Provides little control.
May not penetrate. Will
aggravate mud, ruts, and slip-
pery conditions.
2-3
-------
sant will simply pass through the top surface and provide little control.
With too much sand, the hearing capacity will be poor, and any dust suppres-
sant that attempts to form a crust will not work because of rutting. The
worst dusting occurs under the most common condition—that is, too much silt
and clay—because dust suppressants tend to have trouble penetrating the
surface. Also, when it rains the road will be muddy and slippery, and rutting
will occur; all of these conditions are worsened by the dust supressant.
When dust control is required, roadway samples should be taken to deter-
mine size gradation. If the roadway aggregate does not meet the specifications
on Table 2-1, additional aggregate of the missing sizes should, be added.
Without the proper size gradation of particles, no chemical dust
suppressant or watering efforts will be successful.
2.3.2 Paved Roads
Reentrained dust from paved roads is controlled by removing dirt, from
the road surface by sweeping, vacuuming, or flushing. Unfortunately, all
these methods remove coarse particles more successfully than fine particles.
Thus in any paved road dust control program, emphasis must be placed on re-
moving the fine material from the street.
2.4 FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL METHODS AND COSTS
2.4.1 Unpaved Roads
The dust controls used on unpaved roads are water, chemical suppres-
sants, speed control, good housekeeping practices, and paving. Each of these
methods is discussed briefly in this subsection.
Watering—
Water should be applied to the unpaved road surface with a water wagon or
spray bar. The quantity will vary with the road surface material, sunlight,
humidity, and traffic level. (See Section 2.5.1)
Chemical Dust Suppressants—
A comprehensive survey questionnaire indicated that about 40 manufacturers
market various products for suppression of unpaved road dust. Available pro-
ducts were divided into four categories, based on their method of dust control
and chemical similarity.
2-4
-------
!) Salts—Hygroscopic compounds that extract moisture from the atmo-
sphere and dampen the road surface;^e.g., calcium chloride,
magnesium chloride, hydrated lime, and sodium silicates.
2) Surfactants—Substances capable of reducing the surface tension of
the transport liquid and thereby allowing available moisture to wet
more dirt particles per unit volume; e.g., soaps, detergents, Dust-
set, and Monawet.
3) Adhesives—Compounds that are mixed with native soils to form a new
surface; e.g., calcium lignon sulfonate, sodium lignon sulfonate,
and ammonium lignon sulfonate.
4) Bitumens—Compounds derived from petroleum that are mixed with
native soils to form a new surface; e.g., Coherex, asphalt, and
oils.
Although these categories are not mutually exclusive, most products have a
predominant characteristic that allows them to be so classified.
Salts, adhesives, and bitumens can be applied topically (sprayed on the
road surface) or mixed in place (blade mixed with the top 4 to 6 inches of the
roadbed) at intervals of weeks or months. Surfactants are routinely added to
the water in water wagons and applied at regular intervals.
Selection of a chemical dust suppressant depends on the type of roadway
aggregate, as shown in Table 2-3.
TABLE 2-3. BEST CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANT CONTROL TYPE
BY ROAD SURFACE SIZE GRADATION
Road Surface
Control
Excess Gravel
Excess Sand
Good Gradation
Excess Silt
Water
Bitumens
Any
Rebuilding of Road
Product names, application method and rate, dilution, and costs are shown in
Table 2-4. This table also provides the telephone number of the main office
of each product manufacturer. In many cases, the manufacturer will have a
local representative who can assist in developing application procedures. The
local representative may also have an applicator or can recommend a local
applicator; however, the operator of the hazardous waste site can apply the
dust suppressant if the proper equipment is available.
2-5
-------
The products shown in Table 2-4 represent suppressants that were
available in early 1984. The nature of the business is such that product
manufacturers come and go quickly. Therefore, some products may no longer be
available, whereas some new products may not be listed. Listing of these
products does not constitute an endorsement.
Roadway Preparation-
Regardless of whether water or chemicals are used, proper roadway prepa-
ration is essential for dust control. Preparation steps include adding
aggregate to the surface as required to obtain the size gradation in Table
2-1, and grading the road with a center crown and ric low spots for water to
collect.
Grading will probably be required every 1-2 weeks with watering. With
chemical suppressants, grading after application of the dust suppressant will
almost totally destroy control effectiveness; therefore, an excellent final
grade should be put on the road before the final chemical spray. The road
should not be regraded until :'ust before the second chemical application
(weeks after the initial application).
Spray Equipment--
Chemical dust suppressants and water are most commonly applied with water
wagons equipped with two to five nozzles that shoot a flat spray behind the
vehicle. The flow-control system is often crude and difficult to regulate,
and it is not usually tied to vehicle speed. Therefore, it is difficult to
regulate the quantity of material sprayed. Nonetheless, it is by far the most
common method used.
A calibrated spray bar is more suitable for the application of chemical
dust suppressants. The most sophisticated systems allow the operator to
specify an application rate and the truck will automatically regulate the
speed and spray rate. Some (but not all) bitumens must be applied with an
asphalt distributor because the material must be heated before application.
Costs--
Certain costs are incurred in all dust suppressant, programs. These
include labor and material costs associated with road surface preparation,
cost of the dust suppressant used, application costs, and road maintenance
costs (grading, watering, and supplementing aggregate).
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-4. DUST SUPPRESSANTS FOR UNPAVED ROADS6
Product
Dowflake
Address and
telephone number
of manufacturer
Dow Chemical
Application
method
Mixed
Topical in place
X
Salts
X
Application rate
Dilution5
NA
Applied
gal or
lbs/yd2C
1.55
FOB price
before
dilution
$/gallon
0.0725
ro
i
DP-10
Dust Ban 8806
Dustgard (MgCl9)
Larkin Laboratory
Midland, MI 48640
(517) 636-0949
Wen-Don Corp.
P. 0. Box 13905
Roanoke, VA 24038
(703) 982-0561
Nalco Chemical Co.
2901 Butterfield Rd.
Oak Brook, IL 60521
(321) 887-7500
Great Salt Lake Minerals
and Chemicals Corp.
P. 0. Box 1190
Ogden, UT 84402
(801) 731-3100
None
0.5
None
0.25-0.5
None
0.5
1.95
0.22
0.24
(continued)
-------
Table 2-4 (continued)
Address and
telephone number
Product of manufacturer
Application method Application rate
Applied
Mixed b gal orc
Topical in place Dilution lbs/yd2
FOB price
before
dilution
I/gallon
Salts (continued)
Liquidow Dow Chemical
Larkin Laboratory
Midland, MI 48640
(517) 636-0949
Sodium Silicate (N) The PQ Corporation
P. 0. Box 840
Sodium Silicate (0) Valley Forge, PA 19482
(215) 293-7200
ro
i ___ •
00
X X None 0.27-0.6
X 4:1 NA
X 4:1 NA
Surfactants
0.20
0.69
0.71
M070E
Sterox DF/ND/NJ
Mona Industries, Inc.
P. 0. Box 425
76 E. 24th Street
Paterson, NJ 07544
(210) 345-8220
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63166
(314) 694-1000
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.30
6.35
(continued)
-------
ro
Dust Bond 100
Dust-Set
Dustbinder 124
Table 2-4 (continued)
Product
Bio Cat 300-1
DCL-1801
DCL-1803
Address and
telephone number
of manufacturer
Applied Natural Systems
35 E. Lake Mead Drive
Henderson, NV 89015
(702) 451-6010
Calgon Corp.
P. 0. Box 1346
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
Application
Topical i
X
X
X
method
Mixed
n place
Adhesives
X
X
X
Application rate
Dilution15
66:1
66-200:1
100-200:1
Applied
gal or
lbs/ydzC
2.0
0.5-0.8
0.5-0.8
FOB price
before
dilution
$/gallon
19.95
9.20
30.64
(412) 777-8000
Research Products, Inc.
4222 North 39th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85019
(602) 269-7891
Mateson Chemical Corp.
1025 East Montgomery Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19125
(215) 423-3200
Union Carbide Corp.
Mining Chemicals
270 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10017
(203) 794-2000
None
0.17
500:1
0.17
10-15:1
1.0
0.40
8.00
4.50
(continued)
-------
Table 2-4 (continued)
ro
i
Application method Application rate
POP nvirr
Product
Address and
telephone number Mixed ^
of manufacturer Topical in place Dilution
Applied before
gal orr dilution
lbs/yd2C $/gallon
Adhesives (continued)
Flambinder
Haul Road Dust Control
Flambeau Paper Comapny X X 5.5:1
P. 0. Box 340
Park Falls, WI 54552 . . ,.
(715) 762-3231
Midwest Industrial Supply , X 33:1
Inc.
P. 0. Box 8431
Canton, OH 44711
(216) 499-7888
0.5 0.15
NA 3.75
Lignosite
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
P. 0. Box 1236
Bellingham, WA 98227
(206) 733-4410
X
4:1
0.5
152.00/ton
Norlig A
Norlig 12
Orzan AL-50/Orzan DSL/
Orzan 6L-50
Reed Lignin, Inc. X
120 East Ogden Ave.
Suite 106 X
Hinsdale, IL 60521
(312) 887-9640
Crown Zellerbach Corp. X
Chemical Products Division
Camas, WA 98607
(206) 834-444
X 1.1
X 2.4 Ibs/
gal.
X 10:1
2.8 0.765
2.8 0.228/lb
1.2-6.3 0.20
(continued)
-------
Table 2-4 (continued)
Product
Address and
telephone number
of manufacturer
Application method Application rate
Applied
Mixed ,
Topical in place Dilution
or
Ibs/yd2'
FOB price
before
dilution
$/gallon
Soil-Sement
So i Hex
Suferm
WESLIG 120
Woodchem LS
Adhesives (continued)
Midwest Industrial Supply,
Inc.
P. 0. Box 8431
Canton, OH 44711
(216) 499-7888
Protex Industries, Inc.
1331 West Evans Ave.
Denver, CO 80223
(303) 935-3566
Chevron Chemical Co.
Sulfur Products
575 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 894-6723
WESCO Technologies, Ltd.
P. 0. Box 3880
San Clemente, CA
92672-1680
(714) 661-1142
Woodchem, Inc.
P. 0. Box A
Oconto Falls, WI 54154
(414) 846-2839
5:1
4:1
None
6-10:1
None
0.25
4.8
0.2
0.25
1.5
2.32
0.33
1.88
0.42
0.17
(continued)
-------
Coherex
Docal 1002
Peneprime
Petro Tac P
Table 2-4 (continued)
Application method
Product
AMS 2200
AMS 2300
Address and
telephone number
of manufacturer
ARCO Mine .Sciences
1500 Market Street
- -P. 0. Box 7258
Topical
X
X
Mixed
in place
Bitumens
X
X
Application rate
Applied
. gal or
Dilution0 lbs/yd2C
4:1 0.5
1:1 0.75
FOB price
before
dilution
$/gallon
0.5
0.75
Philadelphia, PA 19101
(215) 557-2000
Witco Chemical
Golden Bear Division
P. 0. Box 378
Bakersfield, CA 93302
(805) 393-7110
Douglas Oil Co.
3160 Airway Ave.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 540-1111
Utah Emulsions Co.
P. 0. Box 248
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
(801) 292-1434
Syntech Products Corp.
520 E. Woodruff Ave.
Toledo, OH 43624
(419) 241-1215
10:1
0.5
2:1
0.1
None
0.5
1:5
0.24-0.75
1.25
0.67
1.23
1.55
(continued)
-------
Table 2-4 (continued)
ro
co
Application method Application rate
Product
Resinex
Retain
Address and
telephone number
of manufacturer
Neyra Industries, Inc.
c/o Petroleum
Products, Inc.
P. 0. Box 493
Valparaiso, IN 46383
(219) 465-1300
Dubois Chemical Co.
3630 East Kemper Road
Sharonville, OH 45241
(513) 769-4200
Mixed .
Topical in place Dilution
Bitumens (continued)
X X 10:1
X X 10:1
Applied
gal or
lbs/ydeC
1.25-5.00
0.5
FOB price
before
dilution
$/gallon
1.48
5.55
. Products listed are not endorsed over products not listed.
~. Water: product.
Quantities are listed as gal/yd2 for liquid products and lb/yd2 for solid products
-------
A recent study (PEDCO 1983) cited total costs of applying specific types
of dust suppressants at a rate and frequency to achieve a 50 percent control
level in a coal mine. Assumptions used for the analysis are shown in Table
2-5. The bases for these assumptions are as follows:
0 Product costs which were obtained from each vendor, represent the
least expensive per gallon cost available. Shipping costs represent
the least expensive method of shipping to an eastern mine (southern
Illinois) and a western mine (southern Wyoming). This removes
geographic advantages.
0 Labor and machinery values represent industry averages obtained from
mine personnel. Rates vary by mine depending on local contracts and
machinery type and age.
0 Water was assumed to be free. This is an inaccurate assumption, but
no reliable cost data could be found.
0 Activity parameters (miles graded per hour, etc.) are industry
averages and vary by mine. Identical parameters were used for all
chemicals mixed in place, and a second set of activity parameters
was used for all topical applications.
These assumptions were used to calculate costs associated with the use of
chemicals and water for dust suppression. The analysis of chemical dust
suppressants was limited to mixed and topical applications of calcium chloride
and mixed-in-place applications of lignon.
Table 2-6 presents a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of four controls
for achieving a minimum 50 percent control level. The limited results show
that topically applied salt or mixed-in-place adhesive are more cost-effective
than watering. The selection of dust suppressant strategies, however, should
also be based on other considerations related to road construction and spil-
lages as explained later in Section 2.5.
Reapplications of the chemicals would probably result in higher control
efficiencies than the initial application because residual traces of the
control material still remain. Therefore, this analysis, which is based on
initial applications, may overestimate the cost of a long-term chemical pro-
gram. Watering has no such cumulative control effects. Also, the analysis
was performed for a mine haul road, where heavy vehicles and high speeds make
dust suppression more difficult than it would be at a typical hazardous waste
site. The less frequent application at these sites might lower the estimated
costs.
2-14
-------
TABLE 2-5. ASSUMPTIONS FOR COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ro
tn
Activity
Application
Maintenance
Cost
item
Surface
Preparation
Application
Grading
Subsequent
Watering
Cost
$/hr
75
45
75
95 -
Time Factor, h/mile
Chem'ical application
— ... . Water Activity
Mixed Topical Application frequency
16 8 0 Depends on effective-
ness of individual
product
8 2 0.15
004 For water, once per
week; for chemicals,
once per application
0.15 0.15 0.15 For water, 1.5 applica-
tions per hour; for
chemicals, one applica-
tion per shift
-------
TABLE 2-6. PRELIMINARY COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON TO
ACHIEVE 50 PERCENT CONTROL
Cost of
chemical
application,
$a/mile
Cost of grading,
watering, $/week
Control East West Grading Water
Applications
required to
average 50%
control
Cost per
week,$
East West
Salt
Mixed
Topical
Adhesive
Mixed
Water
7240
3260
4813
11
5
7
,263
,058
,644
0
0
0
375
143
143
143
1710
1
1
1
per
per
per
4
4
4
120 per
weeks
weeks
weeks
week
1953
958
1346
2085
2959
1408
2054
2085
a Includes the cost of surface preparation, materials, and application.
Material cost represents delivered cost in East (southern Illinois) and West
(Rock Springs). These costs are: Liquidow, $0.36/gallon East, $0.47/gallon
West; Flambinder $0.33/gallon East, $0.47/gallon West. Cost assumes 50-foot
and 60-foot-wide road in East and West.
b Required application intervals could not be estimated for topical application
of adhesive, surfactant, or bitumens based on the data available. Compara-
tive costs could not be calculated.
2-16
-------
Material delivery cost is a significant part of product cost. It can
exceed the cost of the material. The smallest delivery quantity of most
suppressants is e. 55-gallon drum. The material must be pumped or poured in
the applicator.
A more economical way to buy the material is in a tanker truck. If no
onsite storage tank is available, the tank trailer can be left on site and the
material pumped as required.
The material is also available by train tanker car. Again, on-site
storage facilities are required, or the tanker car must be stored on a siding.
Vehicular Speed Control-
In Equation 2-1, the factor S/30 describes the effect of vehicular speed
on dust emissions. For example, a change in speed from 30 to ?.0 mph would
reduce emissions by 33 percent. Although this factor may overestimate
emission reductions resulting from reduced speed, the principle holds. The
cost of imposing speed control is increased labor and equipment time to haul
material.
Housekeeping Practices-
Housekeeping refers to cleaning up spills and track-on material left by
the trucks. These materials will not. have been treated by the dust suppressant
(water or chemical) and are thus easily reentrained. Costs include labor and
equipment time to remove.
The best way to minimize housekeeping is to minimize spills and carryout.
Measures to minimize spills include the use of trucks with tailgates as
opposed to scows, eliminating truck leaks, not overfilling trucks, and
covering loads. The best way to minimize carryout is to eliminate muddy areas
by regrading or gravelling them, and by installing a truck tire and underbody
wash over a grate and requiring all trucks to pass through it.
Paving—
The base emission factor (constant coefficient) for an unpaved road
versus a paved road (see Equation 2-1 and 2-2) is 5.9 Ib/mile traveled versus
0.09 Ib/mile traveled, a reduction of 98.5 percent. This control is far more
efficient than water, chemicals, speed control or housekeeping. Maintaining
this control efficiency, however, requires continued cleaning of the paved
road.
2-17
-------
Costs vary by area of the country and with the thickness of pavement
required to support truck weight. The average cost of blacktopping a two-lane
road suitable for over-the-road trucks is about $140,000 per mile, plus street
cleaning costs.
2.4.2 Paved Roads
Paved roads become dirt-laden from spills, track-on, and windblown
dust. The control methods used on these roads are manual cleaning, mechanical
sweeping, vacuum sweeping, flushing, and general housekeeping practices. The
objective of these efforts is to remove all loose dirt, particularly fine
particles.
Manual Cleaning--
Manual cleaning may be adequate for short sections of road, but it is a
very labor-intensive approach.
Mechanical Sweeping--
Mechanical street sweeping is the most common means of control; however,
it is relatively ineffective in the removal of fine particles. In one series
of tests, material consisting of particles 74 to 177 micrometers in size was
applied to a paved street at a loading of 600 grains per square foot. Removal
efficiency was 46 to 63 percent. Silt-size particles, (less than 74 micro-
meters) are the particles most likely to be entrained. Removal efficiency of
mechanical sweeping for this size particle is probably less than 46 percent.
In addition, the act of street cleaning itself creates dust because of the
impact of the cleaning vehicle tires on the road, the brushing of dry
pavement, and wind turbulence caused by exhaust and vehicle movement. Unless
the street is very dirty, the net improvement in ambient air quality as a
result of sweeping will be small or negative.
Vacuum Sweeping--
Vacuum sweeping is more efficient than mechanical sweeping. In the same
experiment just discussed, collection efficiencies of 90 to 92 percent were
observed. Again, collection efficiency would probably be less for silt-size
particles, and again, some dust emissions are caused by the sweeper itself.
Street Flushers--
Street flushers hydraulically move street debris from the street surface
2-18
-------
to the gutter. Often flushing is used in conjunction with vacuum sweeping
rather than "as the sole method of cleaning. Flushing before sweeping washes
street dirt to the curb for collection by motorized sweepers. When utilized
in this manner, the flushing requires smaller quantities of water and lower
nozzle pressures. The benefits of flushing after sweeping instead of before
are that the entire pavement is made cleaner and only small quantities of dirt
are washed into inlets and catch basins. Like sweeping, flushing is more
effective in the removal of larger particles than fine particles.
Housekeeping Practices—
The same principles apply to paved roads as those for unpaved roads, i.e.
measures to minimize material spillage and dirt track-on, and immediate
cleanup when they do occur.
Summary—
It is recommended that a combination of vacuuming and flushing be used,
with the flushing being performed after vacuuming. Dry sweeping should not be
performed since the sweeping action will probably generate more dust than it
will pick up.
The methods prescribed by the manufacturer for his vacuuming/sweeping
equipment should be used, cognizant of the main objective of removing fines
from the roadway.
2.5 CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS
2.5.1 Unpaved Roads
Watering/Surfactant—
As shown in the watering test results presented in Table 2-7, watering
once per hour will normally have a control effectiveness of 50 percent.
Watering twice per hour or once every two hours will have a control effective-
ness of about 75 and 30 percent, respectively. Effectiveness may be greater
during evening hours and during periods of high humidity.
No surfactant tests have been conducted, but efficiencies at the same
level of water use should exceed those of plain watering. The objective of
using a surfactant, however, is to reduce water consumption, and the
effectiveness of less watering with a surfactant has not been tested.
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-7. COMPARISON OF MEASURED CONTROL EFFICIENCIES
ro
i
ro
o
Control No. of samples
Water 3
9
3
26
3
24
12
24
Bitumens 2
4
5
2
24
24
4
4
8
Location of
test
I&SC
Coal Mine
Coal Mine
Coal Mine
I&S
Coal Mine
I&S
I&S
I&S
I&S
Other
Other
Coal Mine
Coal Mine
I&S
Vehicle
type9
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
LD
HD
LD
NR
LD
LD
HD
HD
HD
Time since
application
0.5-4.5 hd
0-1 h
0-0.5 h
0-0.25 h
0.3-1.0 h
1.0-4.8
0.5-2.0 h
1.0-2.0 h
0.5-2.0 h
< 1 day
0-48 h
25-51 h
28-29 days6
0-3.5 mo
0-3.5 mo
0-3 days
3.5 weeks
2-116 days
Control
efficiency
96-55
98-50
98-61
69-59
73-61
58-54
88
97
75-25
98-61
98-78
98-79
96-67
77-12
66-31
60-15
97-84
97-83
98-92
96-91
97-90
100-94
99-91
97-94
95-90
80-0
86-36
89-59
35
100-21
100-0
100-0
99-0
Particle
size
TP
IP
FP
SP
IP
FP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TP
IP
PM10
FP
TSP
IP
FP
TSP
FP
TP
IP
FP
TP
IP
FP
TP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TSP
TP
IP
PM
pplO
Reference
EPA 1982b
EPA 19815
ARCO 1980
TRC 1981a
EPA 1983
PEDCo 1983
EPA 1979
EPA 1982b
EPA 1982b
USS 1981
EPA 1981a
EPA 1981a
ARCO 1980
ARCO 1980
EPA 1983
(continued)
-------
Table 2-7 (continued)
Location of Vehicle Time since
Control
No. of samples test
8
4
30
18
30
Adhesives 36
Salts
25
36
1
34
26
34
Surfactants 27
? HD =
bTP =
c I>S
j I & S
0 -r_ „ 4. •
20
27
I&S
I&S
Coal Mine
Coal Mine
Coal Mine
Coal Mine
Coal Mine
typea application
HD 7-77 days
HD 4-35 daysf
HD 1-4 weeks
HD 1-4 weeks
HD 3 mo9
HD 1-7 weeks
HD 1-6 weeks
heavy-duty; LD = light-duty; NR = not reported.
total particulate; TSP = total suspended particulate (<39 ym);
= particulate matter <10 ym., FP = fine particulate (<2.5 ym).
= iron and steel facility.
Control
efficiency
87-16
86-22
97-36
100-25
98-88
98-91
100-90
100-25
64-0
85-0
88-0
80-0
91-0
75-0
95
95
88
83-0
74-0
80-0
87-0
68-0
85-0
IP = inhalable
Particle
size
TP
IP
PMio
FP
TP
IP
PM10
FP
TSP
IP
FP
TSP
IP
FP
TSP
IP
FP
TSP
IP
FP
TSP
IP
FP
particulate
Reference
EPA 1983
EPA 1983
PEDCo 1983
PEDCo 1983
EPA 1981b
PEDCo 1983
PEDCo 1983
(<15 ym).
? Time since third application.
Time since second application.
9 Road was watered prior to test.
-------
The water application recommended for obtaining the near 100 percent
control needed at some sites is 0.125 gallon/yd2 every 20 minutes. If muddy
conditions develop, frequency should be reduced to 30 minutes (or more as
possible) to achieve nearly total dust control.
Chemical Dust Suppressants—
Data on the effectiveness of chemical dust suppressants is also shown in
Table 2-7. These data vary widely depending on the number of days since the
last application, application rates, traffic volumes, vehicle size, the re-
ceiving surface, and testing methodologies. In the first week after appli-
cation, efficiencies of 80 percent or greater can be achieved. After one
month, values of 40 to 60 percent are common under heavy-duty vehicle use.
All of these values represent initial applications. Almost no testing has
been performed after chemical reapplications, and the values could reasonably
be expected to be higher.
From an air quality perspective, the relative merits of topical appli-
cation versus mixed-in-place application are unclear. The author's experience
has shown that the salt and bitumen generally perform better when topically
applied, whereas, the lignon mixed-in-place sections were superior. A
possible explanation (based on visual observation) is that the road surface is
generally compacted prior to the application of the chemicals. Whereas
topical application does not disturb this compaction, scarifying and
subsequent windrowing and blading associated with mixed-in-place application
does initially result in a less compacted surface. Visual observations
indicated that the lignon appeared to bind the surface more quickly than did
the salt. A period of time was required for the salt to draw moisture from
the atmosphere, recompact the road surface, and attain maximum effectiveness.
In light of the greatly higher costs involved with mixed-in-place appli-
cation as opposed to topical application, these test results suggest that the
salt and bitumens should be applied topically. At any rate, mixed-in-place
application is usually only recommended at the time of initial application.
As a means of achieving the total control of dust necessary at some
hazardous waste sites, it is recommended that a second chemical dust suppres-
sant application be made 4 to 10 days after the initial application. The
elapsed time should be based on observation. Time between applications can be
gradually lengthened to about 30 days if spillage and track-on are being
controlled.
2-22
-------
Chemicals versus Water--
A comparison of hourly watering with the application of chemical dust
suppressants every 4 weeks plus once/shift watering shows that costs and
control efficiencies are similar, depending on the chemical used (previously
cited Table 2-6). Other considerations that can affect the control selection
are presented in Table 2-8. Chemicals may often be the material of choice,
because contaminated water runoff from the road can present a problem with the
large amount of water necessary when water alone is used as a control measure.
Chemical dust suppressants are not feasible, however, at sites where road
construction is so poor that the road must be regraded or rebuilt with new
aggregate after all major storms. Regrading or rebuilding almost totally
destroys the effectiveness of any applied chemicals; thus, thousands of
dollars of chemicals could conceivably be wasted within days after their
application.
2.5.2 Paved Roads
To date, control effectiveness testing has been mainly directed toward
the effectiveness of the sweeping of city streets in lowering ambient air
quality. City streets are relatively clean to begin with in comparison with
paved industrial roads, which would be more comparable to the paved roads used
for material hauling at a hazardous waste site.
Based on test results of cleaning nonindustrial streets in several
cities, it appears that mechanical sweeping of paved roads makes no
significant difference in ambient air quality; if anything, it may make air
quality slightly worse because more dust is generated during the sweeping than
is removed from the road.
Sweeping of paved industrial roads is much more limited. Based on four
exposure profile tests per control in a steel mill, the highest measured value
for the control efficiency of vacuum sweeping, which occurred 2.8 hours (mid-
point of test) after vacuuming, was 69.8 percent for total particulate (TP)
(EPA 1983). In another test, a control efficiency of 16.1 percent was mea-
sured 4.1 hours after vacuuming. The control efficiency for water-flushing at
2.2 liters/m2 (0.48 gal/yd2) was 54.1 percent for TP approximately 40 min
after application. A subsequent test showed a value of 44.1 percent after 3.6
hours. The control efficiency for flushing and broom-sweeping approximately
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-8. CHEMICALS VERSUS WATER AS A DUST CONTROL MEASURE
Item
Evaluation
Control effectiveness
Cost
Contaminated water runoff
Material spills
Trackout
Maintenance
Freezing Weather
Similar
Chemicals are often lower
in total cost.
Chemicals create less of
a problem.
Water is better
Chemicals are better
Chemicals are better
Chemicals are better
2-24
-------
40 min after water was applied at 2.2 liters/m2 (0.48 gal/yd2) was 69.3 per-
cent for TP. The control efficiency fell to 34.6 percent after 2.8 hours.
The drop in control efficiency on a paved road is more a function of how much
material is being deposited on the road from spilling and windblown dust, than
actual decay in control efficiency (assuming control measurements are made
under dry road conditions). Because some of the steel plant tests were per-
formed immediately after flushing, however, some of the control being measured
is probably the effect of moisture.
2-25
-------
-------
SECTION 3
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM SOIL MOVEMENT
Movement of dirt at a hazardous waste facility could consist of bulldozers
moving soil or front-end loaders loading soil into trucks for removal elsewhere
on the site or cffsite. Control of emissions from trucks was discussed in
Section 2. The purpose of this section is to discuss emissions from dozers,
front-end loaders, and material dumping into trucks.
3.1 DUST PRODUCING MECHANISMS AND PRINCIPLES OF CONTROL
3.1.1 Bulldozers
The tracks and blade of a bulldozer are the sources of emissions.
Bulldozer tracks reentrain dirt in much the same manner as wheels, except the
grinding action is probably greater. The top and sides of the blade generate
emissions as dirt slides off. This is particularly true of the top of the
blade, where thin layers of dirt can easily be carried off by the wind.
3.1.2 Front-End Loaders
Emissions from front-end loaders emanate from the tracks or wheels as
well as the loader bucket. The usual source of emissions from the loader
bucket results from spillage as the bucket is being raised.
3.1,3 Soil Drop
The soil drop creates two sources of dust: 1) when a mass of dirt is
being dropped, the wind picks up soil particles from the edges of the mass;
and, 2) air turbulence causes dust entrainment as the mass of dirt is dropped
into the truck. In the latter case, the displacement of air up out of the
truck caused by the mass of dirt moving downward, causes soil already in the
truck to rise along with soil from the edge of the dirt mass being dropped.
3.2 QUANTIFICATION OF EMISSIONS
3.2.1 Bulldozers
An emission factor was developed for bulldozing activity on overburden
3-1
-------
in coal mines, where silt values ranged from 3.8 to 15.1 percent and moisture
ranged from 2.2 to 16.8 percent. The emission factor which includes emissions
from both the tracks and the blade, is as shown in the following equation
(PEDCo 1981):
.1.2
TSP -
5.7 S"
where
M1'3
TSP = Emissions of total suspended particulate in Ib/h
s = Silt, percent
M = Moisture, percent
(Eq. 3-1)
3.2.2 Front-End Loader and Soil Drop
The emission factor for front-end loader operations given in EPA's
CompiTation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (1982a) was developed based on
material-hand!ing operations at a steel mill. All sources (track, tires,
bucket, dump) are represented by this factor, which is given as:
E = K(0.0018)
0.33
(Eq. 3-2)
where
E = TSP emission factor, Ib/ton
K = Particle size multiplier (dimensionless) = 0.73
s = Material silt content, %
U = Mean wind speed, mph
H = Drop height, (ft)
M = Material moisture content, %
Y = Dumping device capacity, yd3
The silt and moisture terms describe the general dustiness of the material
being moved. Three of the variables deal with the material dump cycle.
Emissions increase with higher wind speed (blowing of dirt from the dirt mass
edges), greater drop height, (more turbulence caused by material drop), and
smaller bucket size (more dirt mass edge per unit of volume).
3.3 PRINCIPLES OF EMISSION CONTROL
3.3.1 Bull dozers/Front-End Loaders
As the soil is moved, new soil is continually exposed; therefore, the
control measure must also be continuous, or at least at frequent regular
intervals.
3-2
-------
The only method of controlling these dust emissions is to spray the area
being worked at frequent intervals (30 minutes to 2 or 3 hours). Water or
surfactant (to minimize the amount of water) can be used, and it can be
sprayed from a mobile tower. Spraying moistens the soil on the surface but
not all the soil being moved; however, soil below the surface is frequently
more moist than soil on the surface. The surface spray reduces emissions from
•the track or wheels, and also tends to reduce somewhat the emissions from the
bucket and material drop.
Limited experiments have been made to try to attach sprays directly to
bulldozers or front-end loaders; however, several operational problems occur.
The machine must either be outfitted with a large tank or an umbilical cord to
a tank, neither of which is desirable. The spray nozzles must be attached to
the blade/bucket or on arms reaching over the blade/bucket. Maintenance is
difficult with either approach. Lastly, machine operators object to working
in the resulting misty conditions.
3.3.2 Material Drop
Although area spraying effects some reduction in emissions resulting
from material drop, the spray does not treat the bulk of the material being
dropped, and significant emissions are still present. Basic control methods
are to induce moisture into the drop cycle (increasing the moisture term in
Equation 3-1) and to decrease windspeed around the drop receptacle (decreasing
the windspeed in Equation 3-1). Neither of these practices is widely used in
truck loading, but they are commonly used in the aggregate industry during the
dumping of material into surge bins.
The most efficient way to spray moisture on material being dumped, is to
construct a mobile frame through which a truck can drive and the truck bed can
be positioned under a series of nozzles. The flat spray from the nozzles
forms a "spray curtain" across the entire horizontal surface of the truck box.
The spray is operated only during the actual dump, and water, surfactant, or
foam can be used. The edges of the soil mass are moistened as it is dumped
through the spray curtain. More important, as the upward turbulance of air
brings dirt upward out of the truck box, the generated dust is caught in the
spray curtain and falls back into the box. The system is not operated con-
tinuously. It is turned on by the truck driver or (remotely) by the front-end
loader operator.
3-3
-------
The use of portable screens provides another way to control emissions
from the dump cycle. The windscreen can be positioned to shield only the dump
cycle or to shield both the dump cycle and the front-end loader operation.
The screen height should exceed the height of the front-end loader bucket drop
by at least a foot, and it should be two screen heights wider than the width
of the area being worked. Screen porosity should be 50 percent. The screen
will shelter a downwind distance of about 7 to 10 screen heights and reduce
windspeed by as much as 50 percent at the surface. With regard to the bull-
dozer or front-end loader, the actual emissions are not reduced, but the lower
windspeed causes the dust to drop back to the ground sooner. The same is true
of the material drop cycle. If the plume from the material drop goes over
the height of the screen, however no control is provided for that part of the
plume. To the contrary, wind eddies from the windscreen may carry the dust
even farther.
3.4 AVAILABLE CONTROL PRODUCTS
The primary available products are surfactants, which can be used for the
area spray and for the spray curtain; foams, which can be used for the spray
curtain; and windscreens. Data on these products are presented in Table 3-1.
3.4.1 Application Methods
Product vendors often sell spray nozzles, masts, and spray curtains, or
can recommend places to purchase these items. They also can assist in the
construction of systems.
For area spraying, a fiberglass fertilizer tank mounted on a trailer
with a pump and portable generator makes a mobile system that can be pulled
anywhere on site with a pickup truck. The surfactant can be mixed in the
fertilizer tank; the sloshing of the liquid while pulling the trailer usually
provides adequate mixing. The material can be reapplied when dust becomes
visible from the bulldozer or front-end loader operations.
A spray curtain is more difficult to fabricate. For best results, it
should be mobile so that it can be moved close to the excavation point to
minimize front-end loader travel. The system can be mounted on a large frame
under which a truck can drive, and it should surround each side of the truck
box. Each side of the frame will contain two to eight nozzles, depending on
the length of,the truck to be loaded and the spray width of the nozzles. The
3-4
-------
TABLE 3-1. SOIL MOVEMENT DUST SUPPRESSANTS
CO
I
01
Product Name
Compound MR
Compound MR 20/40
DCF-20
DCL-163
DCL-1870
Dustalloy
GCP 200
GCP 201
GCP 202
Manufacturers '
addresses, tele-
phone numbers
Johnson-March Corp.
3018 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215) 222-1411
Calgon Corp.
P. 0. Box 1346
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
(412) 777-8000
Wen-Don Corp.
P. 0. Box 13905
Roanoke, VA 24034
(703) 982-0561
Betz Laboratories, Inc.
Somerton Rd.
Trevose, PA 19047
(215) 355-3300
Application method
Topically Topically Mixed
by by fixed in
truck mast place
Liquid chemicals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Application rate
Other Dilution
(surfactant)
1000:1
2000-4000:1
50-200:1
1000-5000:1
1000-2000:1
b
b
b
— — ruo rrioe
Applied before dilution,
gal /yd* $
NAa 4.00/gal
NA 5.25/gal
20-50 Ib 4.76/gal
product to
1000 tons of
material
10-45 Ib 9.26/gal
product to
1000 tons of
material
2-10 Ibs 14.58/gal
product to
1000 tons of
material
Not Not available
available
(continued)
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
Product Name
M070E
Sterox DF
Sterox ND
Sterox NJ
CO
i
CM
Manufacturers '
addresses, tele-
phone numbers
Hona Industries, Inc.
P. 0. Box 425
76 E. 24th Street
Paterson, NJ 07544
(210) 345-8220
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63166
(314) 694-1000
Application method
Topically Topically Mixed
by by fixed in
truck mast place Other
Liquid chemicals (surfactant)
X
X
X
X
Foams
Application rate
Dilution
(continued)
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Applied
gal /yd"
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
Not
available
FOB Price
before dilution,
$
6.30/gal
6.35/gal
6.35/gal
6.35/gal
Aquadyne Dust Motmoco, Inc.
Suppression System P. 0. Box 300
Paterson, NJ 07543
(201) 345-6202
Chem-Jet
Micro Foam
Johnson-March Corp.
555 City Line Avenue
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
(215) 688-2800
DeTer Company, Inc.
8 Great Meadow Lane
E. Hanover, NJ 07936
(210) 386-1363
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(continued)
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
Product Name
Manufacturers '
addresses, tele-
phone numbers
Application method
Appl icat
Topically Topically Mixed
by by fixed in
truck mast place Other Dilution
ion rate
Applied
gal /yd2
FOB Price
before dilution,
$
Foams (continued)
co
Omega Foam Dust
Suppressant System
Sonic Dry Fog
M218
Valerin Technologies, Inc.
Technical Center
87 Great Valley Par.^way
Great Valley Corp. Center
Malvern, PA 19355
(215) 296-7322
Sonic Development Corp.
305 Island Road
Mahwah, NJ 07430
(210) 825-3030
Dowel 1 Division of
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
P. 0. Box 4378
Houston, TX 77210
(800) 645-9355
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Windscreen
Dusttamer
Julius Koch, Inc.
P. 0. Box A-995
New Bedford, MA 02741
(617) 995-9565
Wind- NA
screen
NA 2. 07-2. 95/ linear
foot, 3-ft width
? NA = not applicable.
Application and price information is confidential.
c Products are sold as turnkey systems. Price varies with application and size of system.
-------
masts on which the nozzles are mounted should be adjustable in height so that
they can accomodate different truck heights and different site grades. It is
essential that the flat spray be directly over the top of the truck box. The
system should only be turned on during actual dumping to avoid excessive
liquid, and the nozzles should set for a flat spray instead of a mist, as a
mist will not form a total spray curtain during windy conditions.
3.4.2 EFFECTIVENESS ;
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. (1984b) tested dust control measure
effectiveness during movement of soil. Four control measures were evaluated.
Control Measure 1 consisted of spraying the active working area of the
front-end loader (FEL) and dump truck with water (0.9 gal/yd2). Application
procedures were the same for Control Measure 2, except that surfactant was
added to the water to form a 1:1000 dilution of surfactant to water. Somewhat
less watering was needed for these tests (0.75 gal/yd2). Control Measure 3
consisted of an array of 12 spray nozzles on the sides of the dump truck,
which emitted a spray curtain of a water/surfactant mixture of the same
proportion. Mixture usage amounted to 1.5 gal/yd3. This method was used to
control emissions from the dump cycle. In Control Measure 4, four spray
nozzles were placed at the corners of the truck bed to disperse a foam spray
curtain, which was operated only during each dump. Quantities of liquid
averaged 0.4 gal/yd3.
The results of PEDCo's testing are summarized in Table 3-2. Water
spraying over the area being worked by the FEL and truck resulted in a control
efficiency of 42 percent for <30-ym particles (TSP) and 64 percent for <2.5-um
particles (FP). Surprisingly, the emissions from the dump cycle were reduced
63 and 70 percent for TSP and FP, respectively. Adding surfactant to the
water increased control efficiencies slightly and allowed a reduction in the
quantity of water used. The TSP control efficiency for FEL travel/scraping
increased from 42 to 69 percent with the addition of the surfactant. Other
control values showed smaller increases.
3-8
-------
TABLE 3-2. SUMMARY OF CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS*
Control Efficiency, %
Operation
Front-end
loaders —
traveling and
scraping
Front-end
loaders —
dumping
Control Measure
Area spray-water (0.9 gal/yd2)
Area Spray-Water/Surfactant (0.75
gal /yd*)
Area spray-water (0.9 gal /yd2)
Area spray-water/surfactant (0.9
gal /yd2)
Water curtain (1.5 gal/yd30
Foam curtain (0.4 gal/yd3)
Fine
parti-
culate
64
70
66
62
56
41
Total
suspended
parti cul ate
42
63
69
77
50
46
Source: PEDCo 1984b.
Both spray curtain control measures proved to be less effective than area
spraying with a water/surfactant mixture; however, a redesign of the controls
used could result in higher efficiencies. Of the two spray curtain measures,
the water curtain provided somewhat better control of dust from the dump cycle
than did the foam curtain. If one of these controls were used in conjunction
with the water/surfactant area spray, the resulting control efficiency would
probably be significantly greater than for either one alone.
Dryer conditions than those experienced during the testing would require
greater quantities of water. Nevertheless it is unlikely that the goal of 100
percent control efficiency can be obtained with these technologies. Thus, the
potential for subsequent human exposure to hazardous waste dust would still
exist.
3-9
-------
-------
SECTION 4
CONTROL OF EMISSIONS FROM WIND EROSION
4.1 DUST PRODUCING MECHANISMS
Wind erosion of exposed areas or piles occurs in the following ways: soil
transport by surface creep, saltation, and suspension. Surface creep describes
the rolling and sliding movement of particles across a surface. These parti-
cles generally have a diameter in excess of 1000 urn. Saltation is a term used
to describe the hopping and bouncing movement of a particle. These particles,
which have diameters ranging from 80 to 1000 urn, are lifted by the wind but
are too heavy to remain airborne. Particles smaller than 80 um are generally
moved by suspension. Sehmel (1980) determined that from 3 to 40 percent by
weight of the total soil loss from exposed areas is attributable to suspension.
Between 50 to 75 percent of these particles are moved by saltation, and surface
creep accounts for 5 to 25 percent.
Wind erosion is usually an intermittent activity that occurs above a
threshold wind velocity. Estimates of this threshold velocity vary from about
10 to 20 mph across different soil types, aggregates, and meteorological
conditions.
4.2 QUANTIFICATION OF EMISSIONS
Various researchers have attempted (with limited success) to quantify
emissions from exposed areas and piles.
4.2.1 Exposed Areas
The following wind erosion emission factor equation is the most
commonly used to estimate emissions from exposed areas (EPA 1974):
4-1
-------
E = AIKCL'V • (Eq. 4-1)
where: E = Suspended particulate fraction of wind erosion
s losses of tilled fields, tons/acre/year
a = Portion of total wind erosion losses that would be
measured as suspended particulate, estimated to be
0.025
I = Soil credibility, tons/acre/year
K = Surface roughness factor, dimensionless
C = Climatic factor, dimensionless
L1 = Unsheltered field width factor, dimensionless
V = Vegetative cover factor, dimensionless
Values of undefined variables can be found in the above reference. Values
from this equation can range from .001 to 8.25 tons/acre-year, but generally
range between .05 and .75 ton/acre-year. The equation is based on the premise
that wind erosion varies with soil particle size (A), soil characteristics (I
and K), moisture and windspeed (C), field width (L1), and vegetative cover
(V).
4.2.2 Storage Piles
The following emission factor equation is the most commonly used for
estimating erosion from storage piles (EPA 1979):
E =
(Eq. 4-2)
where
E = Total suspended particulate emission factor, Ib/day/acre
s = Silt content of aggregate, %
p = Number of days/year with >_ 0.01 in. of precipitation
f = Percentage of time that the unobstructed windspeed exceeds
12 mph at the mean pile height
The premise of the equation is that wind erosion emissions vary with soil
particle size, moisture, and windspeed.
4.3 PRINCIPLES OF EMISSION CONTROL
Control systems work in one of two ways: by reducing windspeed on the
soil surface, or by forming a new, less-erodible soil surface.
4-2
-------
The following methods are used to reduce windspeed at the soil surface:
1) Covering the pile with a wind-impervious fabric or vinyl.
2) Erecting a windscreen.
3) Pile orientation and pile shape.
Methods of forming a new, less-erodible surface are:
1) Water spraying to compact and weight soil particles.
2) Application of chemical dust suppressants to form a crust over the
existing soil or to bind the top soil particles together.
3) Establishment of vegetation. The roots bind the soil together, and
the stems reduce windspeed at the surface.
These methods change the I, K, C, and V factors in Equation 4-1.
4.4 AVAILABLE CONTROL PRODUCTS AND THEIR APPLICATION
Products for dust control of exposed areas and undisturbed storage piles
are the same. Product categories are as follows:
1) Liners and geotextiles that are impermeable to the wind. Some are
also impermeable to liquids.
2) Windscreens that decrease windspeed on the downwind side.
3) Spray systems that spray foam every few hours to cover or moisten
the soil.
4) Application of liquid chemicals to form a soil admixture. These
products, which are sprayed on every few weeks, include bitumens,
adhesives, salts, or binders with grass seed.
Product names, manufacturers' addresses, phone numbers, application
methods and costs are shown in Table 4-1.
4.4.1 Liners and Geotextiles
Liners will not allow water or many chemicals to pass. Geotextiles
will allow liquids to pass, and may not be tolerant of certain chemicals.
Because geotext.iles are the more commonly used for prevention of soil erosion,
chemical compatibility testing has not been performed. Some liners and geo-
textiles may also suffer from ultraviolet degradation when exposed to sunlight.
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1. EXPOSED AREA AND STORAGE PILE DUST SUPPESSANTS
Application method
Product name
Manufacturers'
address and
telephone numbers
Topically Topically Mixed
by by fixed in
truck mast place Other Dilution
Application rate
Applied
gal/yd2
FOB price
before bilution,
$
Enviromat
Gagle Liner
Mirafi Fabrics
Sherman Process
(mulch)
Staff Liners
Supac 5NP (UV)
International Minerals &
Chemical Corp.
421 East Hawley Street
Mundelein, IL 60060
(312) 566-2600
Duane W. Gagle Co.
P. 0. Box 441
Bartlesville, OK 74003
(918) 337-0129
Director of Mirafi
Celanese Fibers Merketing
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
(212) 719-8000
KPN International, Inc.
19 Pebble Road
Newtown, CT 06470
(203) 426-3639
Staff Industries, Inc.
P. 0. Box 759
Upper Montclair, NJ 07043
(201) 744-5367
Phillips Fibers Corp.
P. 0. Box 66
Greenville, SC 29602
(803) 242-6600
Mulch, liners, fabrics
Liner NA"
Liner NA
Fabric NA
Mulch NA
Liner NA
Fabric NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.50/yd2
4.00-5.00/yd2
installed
0.90-1.20/yd2
800.00/acre
Not available
0.75/yd2
(continued)
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Product name
Manufacturers'
address and
telephone numbers
Application method
Topically Topically Mixed
by by fixed in
truck mast place Other Dilution
on rate
FOB price
Applied before bilution,
gal/yd* $
Mulch, liners, fabrics (continued)
Watersaver Liner
CJ1
Watersaver Co., Inc.
P. 0. Box 16465
Denver, CO 80216
(303) 623-4111
Liner NA
NA
Not available
Dusttamer
Micro Foam
Julius Koch, Inc.
P. 0. Box A-995
New Bedford, MA 02741
(617) 995-9565
DeTer Company, Inc.
8 Great Meadow Lane
E. Hanover, NJ 07936
(210) 386-1363
Windscreens
Wind- NA NA 2.07-2.95/linear
screen foot, 3 ft. width
Spray systems, foams
X Not Not b
available avialable
Omega Foam Dust
Suppressant System
Sani Blanket
Valerin Technologies, Inc.
Technical Center
87 Great Valley Parkway
Great Valley Corp. Center
Malvern, PA 19355
(215) 296-7322
Sani Foam, Inc.
1370 Logan Ave.
Suite D
Costa Mesa, CA
(714) 557-5070
Not Not b
available available
None 1-2" layer 0.1I/ft2
92626
(continued)
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Application method
Annl4p9 +
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Product name
Application method
Manufacturers'
address and
telephone numbers
Application rate
Topically Topically Mixed
by by fixed in Applied
truck mast place Other Dilution gal/yd2
FOB price
before bilution,
$
Liquid chemicals (bitumens) (continued)
Resinex
Retain
Neyra Industries, Inc.
c/o Petroleum Products,
Inc.
P. 0. Box 493
Valparaiso, IN 46383
(219) 465-1300
Dubois Chemical Co.
3630 East Kemper Road
Sharonville, OH 45241
(513) 769-4200
10:1 1.25-5.0
1.48/gal
10:1
0.4
5.55/gal
Liquid chemicals (adhesives)
Bio Cat 300-1
CPB-12
Curasol AK
Applied Natural Systems,
Inc.
35 E. Lake Mead Drive
Henderson, NV 89015
(702) 451-6010
Wen-Don Corp.
P. 0. Box 13905
Roanoke, VA 24038
(703) 982-0561
American Hoechst Corp.
Industrial Chemicals
Route 202-206 North
Somerville, NJ 08876
(201) 231-2000
66:1
10:1
22:1
2.0
1.0
0.2
19.95/gal
7.50/gal
6.26/gal
(continued)
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Application method
Product name
DCL-40A
DCL-1801
DCL-1803
DG-859
DG-873
Dust Ban 6500
Dust Ban 7991
Dust Ban 8820
.£»
CO
Manufacturers'
address and
telephone numbers
Calgon Corp.
P. 0. Box 1346
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
(412) 777-8000
Betz Laboratories, Inc.
Somerton Road
Trevose, PA 19047
(215) 355-3300
Nalco Chemicals Co.
2901 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook, IL 60521
(312) 887-7500
Topically
by
truck
Liquid
X
X
X
c
c
X
X
Y
Topically
by fixed
mast
chemicals
X
X
X
X
Application rate
Mixed
in Applied
place Other Dilution gal /yd2
(adhesives) (continued)
2-10:1
66-200:1
100-200:1
20-100:1
20-100:1
10:1
None
0.27-1.1
0.5-0.8
0.5-0.8
0.25-1.0
0.25-1.0
0.25-1.0
0.17
FOB price
before bilution,
$
4.14/gal
9.20/gal
20.64/gal
0.67/gal
9.20/gal
5.37/gal
0.40/gal
Dust Bond 100
Dust-Set
Dustbinder 124
Research Products, Inc
4222 North 39th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85019
(602) 269-7891
Mateson Chemical Corp.
1025 East Montgomery Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19125
(215) 423-3200
Union Carbide Corp.
Mining Chemicals
270 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10017
(203) 794-2000
500:1
10-15:1
0.17
1.0
8.00/gal
4.50/gal
(continued)
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Application method
Product name
Manufacturers' Topically Topically Mixed FOB price
address and by by fixed in Applied before bilution,
telephone numbers truck mast place Other Dilution gal/yd2 $
Liquid chemicals (adhesives) (continued)
Flambinder
GCP 203
Lignosite
M166
M167
Norlig A
Norlig 12
Orzan AL-50
Orzan DSL
Orzan 6L-50
Flambeau Paper Company X
P. 0. Box 340
Park Falls, WI 54552
(715) 762-3231
Betz Laboratories, Inc. a
Somerton Road
Trevose, PA 19047
(215) 355-3300
Georgia-Pacific Corp. X
P. 0. Box 1236
Bellingham, WA 98227
(206) 733-4410
Dowell Division of X X
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
P. 0. Box 4378 X X
Houston, TX 77210
(800) 645-9355
Reed Lignin, Inc. X
120 East Ogden Ave.
Suite 106 X
Hinsdale, IL 60521
(312) 887-9640
Crown Zellerbach Corp. X
Chemical Products Division X
Camas, WA 98607 X
(206) 834-4444
5.5:1 0.5 0.15/gal
4:1 0.5 152.00/ton
16-20:1 0.4-0.6 5.10/gal
16-20:1 0.4-0.6 5.55/gal
1.1 2.8 0.77/gal
2.4 Ib/gal 2.8 0.23/gal
10:1 1.2-6.3 0.20/gal
10:1 1.2-6.3 0.20/gal
10 1 1.2-6.3 0.20/gal
(continued)
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Product name
Res 661
Res 3078
Res 4281
Rezosol 5411-B
SP-301
SP-400
Soil Gard
Soil-Sement
Manufacturers '
address and
telephone numbers
Union Chemicals Division
Union Oil Co. of Calif.
14445 Alondra Boulevard
La Mirada, CA 90638
(714) 523-5120
E. F. Houghton & Co.
Madison & Van Buren Aves.
Valley Forge, PA 19482
(215) 666-4105
Johnson-March Corp.
3018 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
(215) 243-1700
Walsh Chemical Corp.
207 Telegraph Drive
Gastonia, NC 28052
(704) 865-7451
Midwest Industrial Supply
Inc.
P. 0. Box 8431
Canton, OH 44711
(216) 499-7888
Application method
Topically Topically
by by fixed
truck mast
Liquid chemicals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mixed
in
place Other Dilution
(adhesives) (continued)
8:1
8:1
8:1
30:1
None
None
5-15:1
5:1
on rate
Applied
gal /yd*
0.2
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.25
0.25
0.25-0.8
0.25
FOB price
before bilution,
$
3.10/gal
3.61/gal
4.04/gal
6.48/gal
2.15/gal
3.95/gal
9.09/gal
2.32/gal
(continued)
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Product name
Suferm
Terra Tack I
Terra Tack III
Terra Tack AR
WESLIG 120
Woodchem LS
55-03 Terraset
81-03 Polybind DLR
81-85 Polytack
Manufacturers'
address and
telephone numbers
Chevron Chemical Co.
Sulfur Products
575 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 894-6723
Grass Growers
424 Cottage Place
Plainfield, NJ 07060
(201) 755-0923
WESCO Technologies, Ltd.
P. 0. Box 3880
San Clemente, CA
92672-1680
(714) 661-1142
Woodchem, Inc.
P. 0. Box A
Oconto Falls, WI 54154
(414) 846-2839
Celtite, Inc.
150 Carley Court
Georgetown, KY 40324
(502) 863-6800
Application method
Topically Topically
by by fixed
truck mast
Liquid chemicals
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
nppinaui
Mixed
in
place Other Dilution
(adhesives) (continued)
None
0.51b/gal
0.251b/gal
0.251b/gal
6.7-10:1
None
X 1.4-10:1
10:1
0.041b/gal
ion rate
Applied
gal /yd*
0.2
0.16
0.33
0.10
0.25
1.5
Not
available
0.5
0.26
FOB price
before bilution,
$
1.88/gal
3.36/lb
3. 95/1 b
3.06/lb
0.42/gal
0.17/gal
Not available
Not available
Not available
(continued)
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
ro
Product name
Manufacturers '
address and
telephone numbers
Topically
by
truck
Application method
Application rate
Topically Mixed
by fixed in Applied
mast place Other Dilution gal/yd2
FOB price
before bilution,
$
Liquid chemicals (salts)
Calcium Chloride,
Flake
Calcium Chloride,
Liquid
DP-10
Dust Ban 8806
Dustgard (MgClJ
<_
Sodium Silicate (N)
Sodium Silicate (0)
Allied Chemical Corp.
Industrial Chemicals Div.
P. 0. Box 6
Solvay, NY 13209
(315) 487-4000
Wen-Don Corp.
P. 0. Box 13905
Roanoke, VA 24038
(703) 982-0561
Nalco Chemical Co.
2901 Butterfield Rd.
Oak Brook, IL 60521
(312) 887-7500
Great Salt Lake Minerals
and Chemicals Corp.
P. 0. Box 1190
Ogden, UT 84402
(801) 731-3100
The PQ Corporation
P. 0. Box 840
Valley Forge, PA 19482
(215) 293-7200
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1.0-1.5 Ib
None 0.4
None 0.5
None 0.25-0.5
None 0.5
4:1 Not
available
4:1 Not
available
0.07/lb
0.225/lb
1.95/gal
0.22/gal
0.24/gal
0.69/gal
0.71/gal
NA = not applicable.
b Sold as turnkey systems.
c Application and price information is confidential.
-------
Installation of a liner or fabric first requires careful site grading to
eliminate rocks, large dirt clods, or sharp objects that might puncture the
material. The site should also be graded so there are no low spots to collect
liquid. This is particularly important with fabrics.
Liners and fabrics typically come in rolls of 12 feet or greater width.
Seams are either overlapped, sewn, pinned, or attached with an adhesive. The
edges are typically placed in a ditch and covered with soil.
4.4.2 Liquid Chemicals
The most diverse group of products are the liquid chemicals. Oil-based
products, many of which are primarily marketed for haul road control, are
listed first, followed by adhesives, which encompass a wide range of products.
For example, Bio Cat 300-1 is marketed as a soil enzyme. Some, such as Flam-
binder, Lignosite, and Norlig A, are lignons; others are polymers of various
sorts, such as AMSCO-RES 4281 (carboxylated styrene-butadiene copolymer),
Curasol (synthetic resin), Genaqua (vinyl acetate resin), and Soil Seal (latex
acrylic copolymer). The polymers are applied as a water-soluble liquid, but
supposedly cure to a non-water soluble material.
Equipment required for application of liquid dust suppressants consists
of a tank, pump, hose, and nozzle. The outfit can be on a truck or on a
trailer that can be pulled by a truck. A portable generator is most often
used to power the pump. Such rigs can be purchased or can be very easily
assembled with readily available components.
The material is sprayed on well-graded soil with no soil lumps and no
drainage puddles. Soil lumps will prevent the seal of soil around them.
Standing water on a chemical will almost certainly reduce its effectiveness
when the soil dries. It may be necessary to spray the chemical on in more
than one application, as many soils will not absorb 0.5 gal/yd2 without running
off (PEDCo 1983). The bitumens are sometimes hard to keep in suspension, and
thus require frequent mixing. Sometimes the addition of heat or chemicals is
necessary. A lignon must never be put in a tank that has contained an emulsi-
fied asphalt or vice versa without thorough cleaning, as solids will form.
Once applied, the area should be fenced or somehow cordoned off. Any
foot traffic, or vehicle traffic will reduce control effectiveness.
4-13
-------
4.4.3 Mulches
Terra Tack I, Terra Tack III, Terra Tack AR, and Sherman Mulch can be
impregnated with grass seed. These products contain a binder to hold the soil
while the grass grows. Other similar products that are available are routinely
used to vegetate highway excavations after construction. A detailed handbook
on the use of materials for quick revegetation of soils of low-productivity
soils is available (EPA 1975).
A mulch thrower is needed to distribute the mulch along the roadway.
These can be rented. The Sherman Mulch is marketed as a product that only the
manufacturer can apply. Before application, the site should be well graded
and well drained.
4.4.4 Windscreens
Windscreens can be mounted either permanently or temporarily. When
mounted permanently, they are mounted on permanent poles, the pole spacing of
which depends on windscreen height and pole material. The product vendor
makes pole spacing recommendations. The windscreen comes in 3- or 4-ft widths,
so heights must be multiples of these widths. Windscreens also come in 10-ft
by 10-ft panels mounted within an aluminum frame (at a much higher cost).
These frames can be moved by two men. Other applications consist of attaching
the screen to poles set in cement blocks. These cement blocks can be moved by
a forklift. This makes a semipermanent installation. Other variations are
also possible.
Specification of the screen size and spacing between the screen and the
dust source is very important. The product vendor will also assist with these
matters. The specifications are discussed under the following subsections.
Screen Height--
Height should be 2 to 4 feet above the source height. Too low a wind-
screen will actually increase downwind emissions because of wind shear.
Distance From Screen to Pile—
The downwind extent of sheltering is typically reported in terms of
number of equivalent screen heights. The distance at which maximum windspeed
reductions occur is 3 to 5 screen heights downwind.
4-14
-------
Screen Length—
With winds exactly perpendicular to a screen, the sheltered area extends
almost straight downwind from the two ends of the screen for a distance of 10
to 15 screen heights. The screen is extended beyond the edges of the area to
be protected to compensate for changes in wind direction that occur over time.
Recommended distances that a screen should extend beyond the area to be pro-
tected are 10 screen heights for a large field (greater than 10 screen heights
in width) or one source width for a small source (less than 10 screen heights
in width), such as a temporary storage pile.
Screen Porosity—
Air that passes through the windscreen fabric is referred to as "bleed
flow", whereas air that is displaced upward over the screen is called "dis-
placement flow". A more porous or permeable screen has higher bleed flow and
less shear in the flow at the screen top. The higher porosity results in less
reduction in mean windspeed immediately downwind of the screen, but a slower
recovery to the upwind condition farther downwind of the screen. Above a
porosity of 40 to 50 percent, large-scale eddying at the displacement flow and
a zone of stagnant flow are no longer evident. Studies that investigated
screen porosity found that a 50 percent porosity screen provides an optimum
mix of wind velocity reduction, depth of shelter area, and low turbulence
(Billman 1984).
Terrain Roughness—
The smoother the terrain on which a windscreen is erected, the greater is
the reduction in windspeed downwind of the screen. Also, the zone of reduced
windspeed becomes larger as upstream terrain roughness and air turbulence are
decreased.
4.5 CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS
4.5.1 Exposed Areas
Several studies have examined wind erosion control from the standpoint
of stabilizing mineral wastes and soil in connection with construction pro-
jects. No studies have been performed in conjunction with improvement of air
quality or the control of dust emissions at hazardous waste sites. Only
4-15
-------
compressive strength, resistance to water erosion, and weatherability have
been tested. Weathering tests consist of placing a weighed amount of soil of
known moisture content in a sheet pan, spraying the soil with a dust-
suppressant, exposing the sample to weather, and reweighing the pan with
moisture correction. The soil loss is the loss in weight through the period.
These tests give qualitative results, but are very representative of a large
exposed area for the following reasons:
1) The soil is not naturally compacted in the baking pan.
2) The soil is much less thick than would be found in place. (The
sample soil is less than 2 inches thick, and moisture could be
expected to behave differently than on a large exposed area.
3) Using a hand spray bottle for suppressant application may not simu-
late the use of a high-powered sprayer on a large exposed area.
4) The before and after weights are compromised by dust and organic
matter falling onto the test sheet.
None of the tests has involved ambient air sampling (Bureau of Reclamation,
1977, 1982; U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1977).
The only known testing with ambient air measurements was performed by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. (1984a). A chemical tracer (zinc oxide) was applied
to 50-ft X 50-ft test plots, after which dust suppressants were applied.
Sampling was performed for several weeks with passive air samplers. The dust
collected from the ambient air was analyzed for the presence of zinc by atomic
absorption spectroscopy. Zinc concentrations above the natural background
level occurring in the soil (75 ppm) indicated failure of the crust formed by
the dust suppressant.
Materials tested, dilution, and application rates are shown in Table 4-2.
Selection of the products shown for testing did not mean they were more or
less effective than other products available. These same products are listed
in previously cited Table 4-1 of this report.
4-16
-------
Sherman Process
(no grass seed)
Sherman Process
(with grass seed)
Terra Tack I
TABLE 4-2. EXPOSED AREA TEST PLOTS9
Dust suppressant
name
Soil Seal
AMSCO-RES 4281
Fiber Mat
Flambinder
Genaqua
Curasol
M166/M167
CRF
Formulation
Latex acrylic copolymer
Carboxylated styrene-
butadiene copolymer
Nonwoven geotextile
Lignon sulfanate
Vinyl acetate resin
Synthetic resin
Latex
Petroleum resin
Application
concentration
3%
20%
8 oz./yd2
17%
10%
3%
7% (M166) +
0.2% (M167)
25%
Application
rate
1.0 gal /yd2
0.6 gal /yd2
3-12 foot rolls
0.5 gal/yd2
0.2 gal /yd2
0.3 gal/yd2
0.5 gal /yd2
0.5 gal/yd2
Straw mulch bound with
emulsified asphalt
Straw mulch bound with
emulsified asphalt
Vegetable gum
0.3%
1.4 gal/yd2
PEDCo 1984a.
Sixteen to 30 days after product application all crusts remained intact
except the CRF product; 30 to 44 days after application only the M166/M167
crust was intact. The zinc tracer values increased through time, representing
the progressive failure of the crust over time.
Visual examination of the plots during the course of the tests revealed
almost immediate plant growth on the initially bare plots. The naturally
occurring vegetation eventually overran all of the test plots, which totally
destroyed the dust-controlling crusts and rendered the test plots indistin-
guishable from the surrounding study area. Even the fiber mat covering one
plot was overtaken by vegetation that grew through the mat. A preemergent
herbicide had to be used on most of the subsequent test plots. Although this
markedly decreased the amount of vegetation, a few plants still appeared on
each plot.
The problem of weed growth is illustrated in Table 4-3. This table
indicates the presence of zinc in various elements of the test plot on July
20. The first column indicates the saltation (ambient air) catch sample.
Values range from 55 to 121 ppm. The crust itself was of course very rich
with zinc because that is where the tracer had been added. Values ranged from
163 to 544 ppm. Below the crust, values were at or near background. The soil
4-17
-------
around the weed stems, however, was apparently composed of destroyed crust,
because zinc levels ranged up to 546 ppm, very near the crust levels. This
loose soil around the weed stems was crumbly and of a very erodible texture
that would be highly subject to wind erosion.
TABLE 4-3. OTHER RESULTS ON INITIAL EIGHT PLOTS TESTED JULY 20a
(ppm)
Product
Soil Seal
AMSCO RES 4281
Fiber Mat
Flambinder
Genaqua
Curasol
M166 & M167
Saltation
sample
85
121
55
90
67
67
72
Crustal
sample
544
413
291
433
366
190
163
Subcrust
sample
47
79
50
46
69
71
91
Soil around
plant stems
499
546
263
546
239
193
108
a PEDCo 1984a.
An alternate procedure for dealing with vegetative growth would be to
encourage it. Products are available that are temporary soil binders impreg-
nated with grass seed. When grass was beginning to grow, the problem would be
the same as that just described. Assuming a thick stand of grass did grow,
control would probably not be 100 percent because there would always be some
loose dirt between grass stems. Also, chemical dust suppressants sprayed on
thick grass stands may not be effective because it would be difficult for the
suppressant to reach the soil.
It is apparent that 100 percent effective control of wind-eroded parti-
culates will require higher dust suppressant concentrations and/or multiple
applications beyond the measures tested in the field study (PEDCo 1984a).
Also, the effects of weather on vegetation must be considered. Precipitation
is detrimental to those suppressants that are water-soluble (e.g., lignon sul-
fanate). Control of plant growth is essential if the crust formed by a dust-
suppressing product is to remain intact.
4-18
-------
4.5.2 Storage Piles
Various studies were found that evaluated the effectiveness of dust
suppressants or windscreens in controlling fugitive dust from storage piles.
Chemical Dust Suppressants--
Two studies have evaluated the use of chemical dust suppressants. The
first study used a wind tunnel placed over a coal pile for the evaluation
(Midwest Research Institute 1983). Results of this study are listed in Table
4-4. Because coal differs greatly from contaminated soil, results are only
partially applicable.
The other study evaluated the use of chemical dust suppressants on a
topsoil pile (PEDCo 1984). Measurements were made with the RAM-1, a light-
scattering instrument. A photograph of the crust formed 2 days after appli-
cation is shown in Figure 4-1. Control efficiencies of more than 50 percent
were estimated. Plots of emission rates indicated a lower rate of wind erosion
than for an untreated pile, and wind erosion was not initiated until a higher
threshold windspeed had been reached. The report concluded that the use of a
chemical dust suppressant was superior to a windscreen in controlling dust, in
terms of effectiveness, cost, and mobility around the pile.
The application of chemical dust suppressants to inactive piles achieved
control efficiencies of at least 50 percent, however, no data indicate that a
control effectiveness of 100 percent was ever approached. The reported data
represent an undisturbed pile. Piles where material is being added or removed
would have to be retreated. Material cost is quite low, however, and only the
disturbed area would need to be retreated. For piles on which vehicles travel,
control measures suitable to controlling vehicle reentrainment would have to
be used, as opposed to the materials listed in this section.
Windscreens--
The use of windscreens has been proposed for reducing fugitive dust
emissions from active and inactive piles. Several studies have been made of
the effectiveness of this approach.
Figure 4-2 from one of these studies shows the reduction in windspeed
velocity resulting from the use of a windscreen (Carner and Drehmel 1981).
Reductions in windspeed velocity of 60 percent were measured at 10 screen
heights. This does not necessarily mean a corresponding reduction occurred in
fugitive dust emissions.
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-4. RESULTS OF DUST SUPPRESSANT WIND TUNNEL STUDY
ro
o
Control efficiency (%)a
Product
Coherex
Dow M-167
Application
concentration (%)
17
2.8
Application
rate (liters /m2)
3.4
6.8
2 days after
application
_
37.0 (TP)
0 (IP, FP)
90.0 (TP)
68.8. (IP)
14.7 (FP)
4 days after
application
_
_
43.2 (TP)
48.1 (IP)
30.4 (FP)
60 days after
application
89.6 (TP)b.
~62 (IP, FP)D
-
-
Wind
speed (m/s)
15.0
14.3
17.2
a Control efficiency measured 15.2 cm above an undisturbed steam coal surface (Coherex) and low-volatility
coking coal surface (Dow).
b TP = total particulate; IP = inhalable particulate (<15 urn); FP = fine particulate (<2.5 vim).
-------
FIGURE 4-1. CRUST FORMED BY CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANT.
4-21
-------
FIGURE 4-2. WIND VELOCITY PATTERN ABOVE A MOWN FIELD DURING A 17-m/sec WIND
BLOWING AT RIGHT ANGLES TO A 4.9-m-HIGH WOOD FENCE 122 m LONG
OF 50% POROSITY, (a) SIDE VIEW PROFILE, (b) PLAN VIEW PROFILE.
(CARNES 1981)
VERTICAL SECTION
ALONG f OF FENCE
'-fence top
-% of upstream velocity^
-IOH
IOH 20H 30H 40H.
DISTANCE IN FENCE HEIGHTS
5OH
60H
GROUND PLAN
WIND READINGS AT
11/3 ft ABOVE GROUND
IOH 20H 30H 40H
DISTANCE IN FENCE HEIGHTS
50H
60f-'
4-22
-------
Another study (TRC 1981b) measured wind reductions downwind of wind-
screens. With a 65 percent permeable windscreen and windspeeds of 3.0 m/s,
wind reductions of 70 percent were measured immediately downwind, and wind
reductions of 40 percent were measured 14 screen heights downwind. For a 50
percent permeable windscreen, values were comparable adjacent to the fence,
but they were less farther downwind.
Another study measured reductions in fugitive dust emissions as well as
reductions in windspeed (TRC 1982). The TSP emissions were sampled with high
volume samplers. Testing was performed on a fly ash pile. The study concluded
that the windscreen was effective both in reducing wind velocity approximately
66 percent under ordinary conditions and peak gusts by approximately 58 per-
cent, and in reducing TSP and IP concentrations downwind by an average of 75
percent and 60 percent, respectively.
PEDCo (1984c) studied windscreens by using RAM-1 aerosol monitors and
windspeed sensors interfaced with a portable computer to give real-time data
results. The analysis indicated that the windscreen did not produce signifi-
cant reductions in concentrations in the less that 10 micrometer respirable
size range. The screen did reduce windspeeds by the amount anticipated, but
this did not result in commensurate reductions in particulate concentrations
coming from the pile. This probably occurred because wind erosion emission
rates for particles in the less than 10-micrometer size range are fairly
constant at windspeeds above the threshold of about 7 mph (hourly average).
The additional emissions associated with high wind erosion losses at high
windspeeds involve larger particles, which are not detected by RAM-l's.
Although the windscreen may be effective in stopping or reducing the movement
of these large particles, many of them do not stay airborne long because of
their relatively large size; therefore, they present less threat of offsite
exposure.
In summary, all studies are in fair agreement about reductions in wind-
speed resulting from the use of windscreens. Only two studies have measured
reductions in dust concentrations as opposed to reductions in windspeed. The
TRC (1982) study found reductions in the TSP size range of 60 to 75 percent.
PEDCo studies of particles in the less than 10-micrometer respirable size
range indicate no consistent benefits from the windscreen, but acknowledge
4-23
-------
that positive control efficiencies of larger size particles are likely.
Control of the smaller size particles is more important, however because they
are in the respirable range and because their small size allows allow the wind
to transport them far offsite.
4-24
-------
SECTION 5
FORMULATION OF A DUST CONTROL PLAN
Formulation of a dust control plan is an integral part of site cleanup
planning. If the dust control plan is not formulated before cleanup begins
but added on as an afterthought, it is possible that dust control measures
will:
0 Not be performed regularly.
0 Not be adequately funded.
° Be performed in a less effective, begrudging way by employees
saddled with the added responsibilities.
0 Lack the necessary physical components (e.g., the addition of
aggregate to unpaved roads, mud carryout wash stands, fencing for
exposed areas).
0 Not be adequately monitored by appropriate recordkeeping or ambient
monitoring
The following tasks should be completed in the formulation of a dust
control plan:
1) Identification of dust sources
2) Identification of controls
3) Development of implementation plan
4) Development of inspection, recordkeeping, and monitoring programs
5) Allocation of sufficient resources
Each of these work areas is described in this section.
5-1
-------
5.1 IDENTIFICATION OF DUST SOURCES
The first task in the development of a Dust Control Plan is to identify
all potential sources of fugitive dust. These sources (discussed earlier in
Section 2) are listed below:
0 Vehicle-related .
Paved roads
Unpaved roads
Road shoulders along paved or unpaved roads
Mud carryout
Truck spillage
0 From movement of dirt
Bulldozing
Loading into trucks
- Travel area
- Dump
Unloading from trucks
0 Wind erosion-related
Exposed areas
- Long-term (months)
- Short-term (weeks)
- Temporary (days)
Storage piles
- Inactive
- Active
After specific categories of fugitive dust have been identified, their
location and period of existence should then be determined. Mapping the
location of fugitive dust sources can be helpful. If the cleanup activity is
staged or highly variable over time, a separate map for each stage may be
needed.
5.2 IDENTIFICATION OF DUST CONTROL METHODS TO BE USED
Control method alternatives for each fugitive dust source are shown in
Table 5-1 in the order of their usual effectiveness. None of these is 100
percent effective over the long term, with the possible exception of paving or
placement of impermeable covers over exposed areas and piles.
The selection of which control measure to use can be a problem. Techni-
cal factors to aid in the decision-making process were presented in Section 2.
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-1. POTENTIAL DUST CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
Fugitive dust source
Dust control method alternatives
en
co
Vehicle-related:
Paved roads
Unpaved roads
Road shoulders along paved or unpaved
roads
Mud carryout
Truck spillage
Movement-of-dirt-rel ated:
Bulldozing
Loading into trucks
Travel area
Dump
Unloading from Trucks
Wind Erosion Related:
Exposed Areas
Long-term (months/years)
Short-term (weeks)
Temporary
Storage piles
Inactive
Active
Vacuum sweeping/flushing
Chemical sprays, water sprays, barring tracked vehicles
Chemical sprays, water sprays
Eliminating mud spots (regrade, gravel), tire washing
Preventing overloading, covering loads, using trucks with
tailgates vs. scows
Area surfactant spray, area water spray
Area surfactant spray, area water spray
Area spray, spray curtain
Spraying material before loading into truck, spray bar
Paving, covering, chemical sprays
Covering, chemical sprays, water
Covering, chemical sprays, water
Covering, chemical sprays, water sprays, pile orientation
Covering unused sections of pile, chemical sprays, water
sprays, pile orientation
-------
The basic steps in the decision-making involve determination of the following:
1) Which control measures would technically solve the dust-control
problem irrespective of operational or financial constraints.
2) The minimum level of control acceptable.
3) Restraints caused by method of site cleanup, i.e., the operational
feasibility of applying each control measure.
4) Financial feasibility of applying the control measure, including
contractor equipment availability, material cost, and labor cost.
5.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
After dust sources and control measures have been identified, a list of
resources necessary to implement the plan should be developed. This list
would include:
1) Dust suppressant quantities
2) Application equipment (spray tanks, hoses, pumps, nozzles, hardware,
road vacuum/flusher, calibrated spray trucks for unpaved roads and
road shoulders, etc.)
3) Manpower (application, supervision, air quality monitoring, inspec-
tion, recordkeeping)
The resources must be identified for the whole cleanup job, but they also
must be developed by smaller time increments. For average assignments, a
weekly delineation probably will be adequate.
5.4 DEVELOPMENT OF INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING, AND MONITORING PROGRAM
5.4.1 Inspection and Recordkeeping
A single person should be designated as Dust Control Manager and be
made responsible for dust control activities and dust control inspections.
The Dust Control Manager should report directly to the person in charge of the
entire cleanup operation (not a shift foreman because activities span all
shifts). If the cleanup operation runs more than one shift per day, the Dust
Control Manager should have assistants on the off-shifts. The Dust Control
Manager should continuously observe cleanup activities, and should inspect
storage pile and exposed area treatments on a daily basis.
5-4
-------
A recordkeeping system should be developed that includes the following: a
listing of all inspections to be made on a daily basis, the person responsible
for the inspection, blanks on forms on which to write the time and results of
the inspection, and the person actually making the inspection. Inspection
records should be submitted to and reviewed on a weekly basis by the person in
charge of the site cleanup and the EPA site coordinator.
5.4.2 Monitoring
Depending on the severity of the contamination and the proximity to
population and animals, an air quality monitoring program may be advisable.
The Dust Control Manager should not be responsible for this program, which is
essentially a policing function of the dust control program.
Very little monitoring of particulates has been performed to date.
Emphasis has been on onsite monitoring of organics for worker protection and
monitoring at the perimeter for liability protection. Monitoring has been
performed with Tenax or charcoal tubes. Primary references describing moni-
toring around hazardous waste sites are:
1. Ambient Air Monitorina at Hazardous Waste Sites
Vol. 1 - State of the~Art Review, 1981; Vol. 2 -
Guidelines for Quality Assurance and General Pro-
cedures, 1980. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and
Development, Research Triangle Park, NC
2. Air Surveillance at Hazardous Materials Incidents.
1983. U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Hazardous Response Support Division, Cin-
cinnati , Ohio.
The following three methods can be used for particulate monitoring:
1) Tenax Tubes. Particulates trapped in the glass fiber, and the glass
fiber is included in the thermal desorption process. When charcoal
tubes are used, the particulates are caught in the glass fiber, but
the fiber is discarded and not included in the analysis.
2) Personal Samplers. Personal samplers can be used with fiber filters
for heavy metals analysis, or with membrane filters for organics.
The membrane filter can be dissolved with a solvent for GC analysis.
3) Ambient Air Samplers (High-Volume, dichotomous, Size-Selective
Inlet, Medium-Volume, Low-Volume). These samplers can be used with
fiber or membrane filters for heavy metal or organic analysis.
5-5
-------
Laboratory procedures for analysis of heavy metals are fairly standardized and
reliable. Analyses of organics from filters is more difficult, and procedures
vary with the organic being measured.
Placement of the monitors depends on the purpose of the sampling. Most
monitoring protocols specify eight perimeter samplers. All hazardous pol-
lutants are assumed to emanate from the sites. Monitored values are compared
with critical exposure levels at the fenceline. The cleanup contractor often
uses this method as liability protection against claims from area residents.
Theoretically, if no critical exposure levels are measured at the fenceline,
values further downwind will be below the critical exposure level.
An additional or alternate procedure would be to place samplers in popula-
tion areas to measure exposure levels where the public lives. The drawback to
this approach is determining with absolute certainty the origin of the organic
or heavy metals monitored.
5.5 ALLOCATION OF SUFFICIENT RESOURCES
The preceding four steps will result in the identification of required
equipment, materials, and labor. Fiscal resources should be allocated for the
dust control program as part of the original project bid.
5-6
-------
REFERENCES
ARCO Coal Company. 1980. Black Thunder Haul Road Supply.
Billman, B.J. 1984. Windbreak Effectiveness for the Control of Fugitive Dust
Emissions From Storage Piles—A Wind Tunnel Study. Presented at the
Fifth Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control
Technology, Kansas City, Missouri.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1977. Chemical and Vegetative Stabilization of Soils.
REC-ERC-76-B. U.S. Department of Interior, Engineering Research Center,
Denver, Colorado.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1982. U.S/U.S.S.R. Joint Studies on Plastic Films and
Soil Stabilizers. Interior Report, Vol. 4., Laboratory and Field Studies
in Soil Stabilizers. U.S. Department of Interior, Engineering Research
Center, Denver, Colorado.
Cahill, T.A., et al. 1979. Ambient Aerosol Sampling With Stacked Filter
Units. FHWA-RD-78-178. Federal Highway Administration, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Garner, D.} and D.C. Drehmel. 1981. The Control of Fugitive Emissions Using
Windscreens. Presented at the Third Symposium on the Transfer and
Utilization of Particulate Control Technology, Orlando, Florida, March
9, 1981.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development of Emission Factors for
Fugitive Dust Sources. EPA-450/3-74-037.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Manual for Methods of Quickly Vegeta-
ting Soils of Low Productivity, Construction Activities. Office of
Water Programs, Applied Technology Division, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Iron and Steel Plant Open Dust
Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation. EPA-600/2-79-103.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1981a. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Civil Engineering Fabrics and Chemical Stabilizers in the Reduction of
Fugitive Emissions from Unpaved Roads. Prepared by TRC Environmental
Consultants.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1981b. Improved Emission Factors for Fugi-
tive Dust from Western Surface Coal Mines. Prepared by PEDCo Environ-
mental, Inc., and Midwest Research Institute.
5-7
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Factors. AP42.
1982a. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Environmental Protection Agency. 1982b. Iron and Steel Plant Fugitive Emis-
sion Control Evaluation. Draft Final Report. Prepared by Midwest Re-
search Institute.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Extended Evaluation of Unpaved Road
Dust Suppressants in the Iron and Steel Industry. EPA-G8-02-3177.
Prepared by Midwest Research Institute.
Midwest Research Institute. 1983.
Emission Control Evaluation.
ronmental Protection Agency.
Iron and Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive
EPA-600/2-83-110.Prepared for U.S. Envi-
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. 1981. Improved Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. 1983. Cost-Effectiveness of Dust Controls Used on
Unpaved Mine Roads. Prepared for Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of
the Interior.
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. 1984a. Fugitive Dust Control Techniques at Hazar-
dous Waste Sites. Field Sampling Report No. 1. Sampling Results for
Exposed Area Testing. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. 1984b. Fugitive Dust Control Techniques at Hazar-
dous Waste Sites. Field Sampling Report No. 2. Sampling Results for
Active Cleanup Testing. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. 1984c. Fugitive Dust Control Techniques at Hazar-
dous Waste Sites. Field Sampling Report No. 3. Control of Storage Pile
Emissions with Windscreens and Chemical Dust Suppressants. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering Re-
search Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
TRC Environmental Consultants.
ment and Modeling Study.
1981a. Coal Mining Emission Factor Develop-
TRC Environmental Consultants. 1981b. The Control of Fugitive Emissions
Using Windscreens. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park,
NC.
5-8
-------
APPENDIX A
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION AND WORKER PROTECTION
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION
Various pieces of equipment are used in the dust control program. For
example, water wagons, calibrated sprayer trucks, road graders, drums, pumps,
and hoses are used in road control; tanks, hoses, pumps, nozzles, windscreens,
and trailers are used in wind erosion control; and, similar equipment is used
for dust suppression during cleanup activities. For many of the used materi-
als, the most economical approach would be to demolish them and remove them
to a secure landfill. For major equipment, however, decontamination is the
most economical approach.
Steam cleaning is by far the most frequently used decontamination method.
The actual method selected, however, should be based on the nature of the
contaminant, and it should be closely tied to the decontamination efforts
throughout the site. The various methods of decontamination and the effective-
ness of each are discussed in the following subsections of this appendix.
Steam Cleaning
Steam cleaning physically extracts contaminants from the surfaces of the
equipment. The steam is applied with hand-held wands or automated systems,
and the condensate is collected in a sump for treatment.
Steam cleaning is a relatively inexpensive and simple technique. Depend-
ing on the contaminant, decontamination may occur through thermal decomposi-
tion and/or hydrolysis. This technique is known to be effective only for
surface decontamination, however. Removal of most contaminants is purely
mechanical because of the limited solubility of many residues in water. Also,
large volumes of contaminated water are generated.
Variations of this method include generating steam in the form of a
water/acetone mixture to enhance contaminant solubility, mixing a wetting
A-l
-------
agent with the steam, superheating the steam, or using steam-jet systems for
high fuel efficiency.
Effectiveness--
Removal or reaction of contaminants from the surface should be very good
because steam can physically remove the contaminants from the surface; however,
removal or reaction of contaminants from the subsurface is probably poor, as
many contaminants have low solubilities in water. Theoretically, steam can be
used to remove contaminants from the subsurface if the steaming effort is
continued for a long period of time, but this has not been demonstrated.
Paint may act as a barrier.
Equipment and Support Facilities Needed-
Steam cleaning requires steam generators, spray systems, collection
sumps, and waste-treatment systems. The reliability, availability, and main-
tainability should be quite high, as commercial-scale steam cleaners are
available from many manufacturers.
Minimal setup time is required, but special collection systems may have
to be designed if floor sumps are inadequate. Existing sumps must be checked
for leaks. A pumping system can be set up to remove condensate continuously.
Waste Disposal —
The contaminated wastewater collected in the sump must be treated to
remove or destroy any waste residues. Pretreatment on site or in a municipal
wastewater treatment facility will be needed. Treatment residues may be
considered hazardous waste. (40 CFR Part 261 regulations and other pertinent
EPA guidance should be consulted.)
Costs-
Utility and fuel costs should be low because steam is relatively inexpen-
sive to generate. Equipment costs include steam cleaners ($2000 to $5000),
spray systems, collection sumps, and waste-treatment systems. Material costs
may include additives such as surfactants or acetone. Manpower costs may be
high because steam must be applied to all surfaces and because more than one
application may be necessary. A water rinse will probably be required.
Automated steam wands can reduce labor costs, but they increase equipment
costs.
A-2
-------
Hydroblasting/Waterwashinq (Benecke 1983; Marion 1980; Jones 1982)
A high-pressure (500 to 50,000 psi) water jet is used to remove contami-
nated debris from surfaces. The debris and water are then collected and
thermally, physically, or chemically decontaminated.
Hydroblasting offers a relatively inexpensive, nonhazardous surface
decontamination technique with off-the-shelf equipment. Variations such as
hot or cold water, abrasives, solvents, surfactants, and varied pressures can
be easily incorporated. Many manufacturers produce a wide range of hydro-
blasting systems and high-pressure pumps.
Hydroblasting may not effectively remove contaminants that have penetrated
the surface layer. Also, large amounts of contaminated liquids
will have to be collected and treated.
Effectiveness—
Hydroblasting is believed to remove surface contamination completely. On
the average, this method removes 1/8 to 1/4 inch of concrete surface at the
rate of 360 ft2/hour. High pressures (10,000 to 50,000 psi) and chemical
additives also can remove contaminants from below the surface; however, water
may damage insulation and wooden surfaces. Other methods may be needed to
remove/decontaminate remaining waste residues that have deeply penetrated
surfaces through cracks and pores.
Equipment and Support Facilities Needed--
Hydroblasting requires a water-blasting system consisting of a high
pressure-pump, hoses and nozzles, water collection sumps, water storage tanks,
and conventional water pumps. Off-the-shelf equipment is used and the system
is quite simple. Reliability, availability, and maintainability are high.
Before decontamination activities begin, existing sumps or water collec-
tion systems must be checked for leaks. Installation of sumps and external
water storage tanks may be necessary.
Waste Disposal —
The removed surface debris and spent water must be collected in a sump
system. Solids are separated by settling, and the liquid portion may be
recyclable. All solids and used liquids should be considered contaminated and
handled accordingly. Disposal of solids in a hazardous waste landfill will
A-3
-------
probably be required if these are not decontaminated. Incineration is a
possible treatment option. The liquid also may require pretreatment to remove
contaminants prior to its discharge to an NPDES-permitted wastewater treatment
facility. Activated charcoal alone or combined with sand filtration may work,
but this is expensive, and the filter and solids must be treated or disposed
of as a hazardous waste.
Costs--
A hydroblaster can be powered by gas, electricity, or diesel fuel, so
utility and fuel costs should be moderate. A 10,000-psi, 10-gpm diesel-powered
pump with a trailer costs $27,138, and a wet sandblast mixing head is $542. A
5000-psi, 10-gpm diesel-powered pump with a trailer costs $19,125 (manufac-
turer's brochure). Other material costs to be incurred include those for
water and solvents, surfactants, and abrasives (if added). Personnel costs
could be high. Automated systems can decrease personnel costs, but will
increase equipment costs.
WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY
Training
All personnel engaged in activities at Superfund emergency or remedial
sites should undergo various levels of orientation and training. Hazardous
waste training courses can be developed in-house (under the direction of
experts in the field), or workers may attend any number of commercial courses
available throughout the United States. These commercial courses are sponsored
by universities, private firms, and local, state and Federal agencies. Every
course should have the following basic components: classroom training, hands-
on field work, and periodic refresher training.
Medical Surveillance
The purpose of a medical surveillance program is to maintain a record of
general worker health to ensure appropriate placement of workers in job cate-
gories, to prevent, (or to detect at an early stage) any harmful effects of
hazardous substances on workers, and to provide resources for emergency medical
care and treatment. Responsibility for a medical surveillance program should
be assigned to medical personnel who are knowledgeable in toxicology and
A-4
-------
experienced in occupational medicine. Program development should be coordi-
nated with industrial hygienists, emergency response team members, safety
professionals, or other persons involved in the overall site safety plan.
Fragmentation of the medical management of employees or of individual medical
records should be avoided, however.
The major components of a medical surveillance program are preassignment
physicals, periodic medical exams, recordkeeping, exit exams at employment
termination, and emergency medical care plans.
Personal Protective Equipment
Proper selection and use of personal protective equipment are crucial to
the preservation of worker safety and health. Subpart I of OSHA Regulation 29
CFR 1910 states that "protective equipment...shall be provided, used, and
maintained...wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or
environment." Personal protective equipment is often the sole barrier separa-
ting workers from potentially hazardous substances during decontamination
projects. Headgear, protective clothing, gloves, boots, goggles, and respi-
rators are designed to permit safe work operations by preventing skin contact,
dermal absorption, inhalation, and inadvertent ingestion of potentially toxic
agents. Personal protective equipment is also designed to protect the worker
from physical injuries such as eye wounds, bruises, abrasions, and lacerations.
Four factors must be considered in the development of a program of personal
protective equipment: 1} selection of appropriate equipment, 2) equipment
distribution, 3) worker training, and 4) equipment decontamination and/or
disposal procedures. Any personal protective equipment program should
also meet the general requirements outlined by OSHA 29 CFR 1910, Subpart I.
Equipment Selection—
The hazards present at the decontamination site must be characterized
before the proper personal protective equipment can be selected. The types,
toxicity, and concentrations of contaminants must be defined. Points of
potential high-risk contact (splashes, high atmospheric concentrations, etc.)
during specific job operations should be identified when possible. The degree
of hazard at the decontamination site will dictate the level of personal
protective equipment required. The equipment necessary to protect the body
A-5
-------
against contact with known or anticipated chemical hazards can be divided into
four categories, each affording a different level of protection (EPA 1982):
Level A requires the highest level of respiratory, skin, and eye protec-
tion. Level A protective equipment consists of:
0 Pressure-demand, self-contained breathing apparatus approved by
NIOSH and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).
0 Fully encapsulating chemical-resistant suit
0 Coveralls*
0 Long cotton underwear*
0 Gloves (outer), chemical-resistant
0 Gloves (inner), chemical-resistant
0 Boots, chemical-resistant, steel toe and shank (depending on suit
construction, worn over or under suit boot)
0 Hard hat* (under suit)
0 Disposable protective suit, gloves and boots* (over fully encapsu-
lating suit)
0 2-way radio communications (intrinsically safe)
Level B is selected when the highest level of respiratory protection is
needed but a lesser level of skin protection is sufficient. Level B
protection is the minimum level recommended on initial site entries until
the hazards are further defined. It consists of:
0 Pressure-demand, self-contained breathing apparatus (MSHA/NIOSH-
approved)
0 Chemical-resistant clothing (overalls and long-sleeved jacket;
coveralls; hooded, one- or two-piece chemical-splash suit; dispos-
able chemical-resistant coveralls)
0 Coveralls*
0 Gloves (outer), chemical-resistant
0 Gloves (inner), chemical-resistant
0 Boots (outer), chemical-resistant, steel toe and shank
* Optional
A-6
-------
0 Boots (outer), chemical -resistant (disposable)*
Hard hat (face shield)*
0 2-way radio communications (intrinsically safe)
Level C is selected when the type of airborne substances is known and the
criteria for air purifying respirators are met, as in the case of most
building and equipment decontamination operations. Level C protective
equipment consists of:
Full -face, air-purifying, canister-equipped respirator (MSHA/NIOSH-
approved)
Chemical -resistant clothing (coveralls; hooded, two-piece chemical-
splash suit; chemical-resistant hood and apron; disposable chemical-
resistant coveralls)
0 Coveralls*
0 Gloves (outer), chemical -resistant
Gloves (inner), chemical -resistant*
0 Boots (outer), chemical -resistant, steel toe and shank*
0 Boots (outer), chemical-resistant (disposable)*
Hard hat (face shield*)
0 Escape mask*
0 2-way radio communications (intrinsically safe)
D is selected when there are no respiratory or skin hazards. Level
D protective equipment consists of:
0 Coveralls
Gloves*
/
Boots/shoes, leather or chemical-resistant, steel toe and shank
0 Boots (outer), chemical-resistant (disposable)*
0 Safety glasses or chemical-splash goggles*
Hard hat (face shield*)
0 Escape mask*
* Optional
A-7
-------
When conditions are uncertain, the maximum level of personal protective
equipment should be used. Also the equipment chosen should be able to handle
the highest exposure conditions likely to be encountered during the scope of
work. Personal protective equipment requirements for some chemicals are
designated by government regulations. For example, the OSHA Asbestos Regula-
tion (29 CFR 1910.1001) describes the types of respirators that must be used
by workers occupationally exposed to asbestos fibers.
Specific details about performance characteristics of personal protective
equipment are available from manufacturers . In addition, NIOSH has published
several guides describing different types of personal protective equipment
(including respirators) and their appropriate uses.
Equipment Distribution—
For effective management of a personal protective equipment program, a
particular location or locations should be established as a center for all
equipment distribution, storage, repair, and maintenance. Responsibility for
these activities should be assigned to a specific individual or group of
individuals, and all personnel should be made aware of the location of the
personal protective equipment center. Checkout procedures for some safety
devices, such as self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBA), may be useful to
track particularly hazardous operations. Extra equipment should be readily
available in case of emergency or for use by site visitors.
During use, personal protective equipment is subject to physical damage
as well as contamination with hazardous substances. Contamination must be
removed from equipment prior to its reuse. If equipment is washed, the spent
wash and rinse solutions are treated as contaminated waste. Damaged or non-
reusable equipment also should be disposed of as contaminated waste. General
guidelines for decontamination of personal protective equipment are presented
in Part 7 of the "Interim Status Operating Safety Guides" (EPA 1982).
Site Safety Plan
The objective of a site safety plan is the establishment of standard
operating procedures and guidelines to ensure that all facets of the decontami-
nation operation are conducted in a safe and orderly manner. Depending on the
situation, the responsibility for developing a site safety plan may lie with
Federal agencies (OSHA, NIOSH), state agencies (mainly Departments of Health),
A-8
-------
site owners, or cleanup contractors. Because safety plans must be site-
specific, they are subject to modifications by onsite supervisory personnel.
The site safety plan should appoint one individual as the site safety ,
officer. This individual should be thoroughly knowledgeable of all Federal,
state, and local governmental regulations and guidelines pertaining to the
contaminant(s) at the site. The site safety officer may consider consulting
other references (industrywide publications, private research documents,
industrial hygiene organizations) that address the specific contaminants of
concern. The site safety officer should be given complete control of the
safety aspects of the cleanup operations and should have the authority to make
on-the-spot decisions concerning job safety procedures. In addition, the
safety officer should be responsible for reporting, documenting, and correcting
any infractions of safety-related rules and should have the authority to shut
down the job site if severe and/or chronic rule infractions occur.
Within the organization responsible for overall cleanup operations, a
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) staff responsible for the monitoring
of all site safety activities should be established. As part of their duties,
QA/QC personnel should review the site safety plan before its implementation
and follow up with periodic audits to assure compliance with the previously
approved procedures.
The site safety plant should focus on the standard operating procedures
necessary to ensure that all field work is conducted in an efficient yet safe
manner. When a decontamination operation has been contractually agreed upon,
an extensive review and investigation of the job site should be conducted
before any field operations are begun. During this time, site safety per-
sonnel should familiarize themselves with the layout of the cleanup area and
become thoroughly knowledgeable regarding the job specifications for the
project, particularly those affecting worker health and safety.
In addition to an investigation of the job site, preoperational activities
should include obtaining, verifying, and posting emergency phone numbers (fire
department, hospitals, security); compiling a list of the type, amount, and
toxicity of waste and potentially harmful substances found at the site; making
sure an eyewash unit is available at the site; obtaining a first aid kit
suitable for treating minor injuries that are likely to occur during cleanup
operations; ensuring that all personnel who are to work at the site have had
A-9
-------
the required medical tests and training; notifying all applicable local,
state, and Federal agencies; ensuring that all workers have been briefed on
the hazards of the contaminant(s) they are about to encounter and are aware of
the proper way to carry out decontamination procedures; and maintaining an
appropriate supply of protective equipment on site.
When the initial safety precautions have been implemented, containment
barriers should be constructed to separate contaminated areas from clean
areas. An entry module, which provides for the safe entry and exit of those
who must enter and leave contaminated areas, usually takes one of two forms:
an airlock or a trailer. Airlocks, which can be constructed on sites, consist
of prefabricated wooden structures and polyethylene sheeting. Whether a
portable trailer with airtight connections or an airlock structure is used,
the components are similar and provide like services. Both should include
showers, locker areas, rest rooms, security offices, negative-air filtration
systems, waste disposal operations, and a monitoring and recording station.
SAMPLING METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF DECONTAMINATION
Swab Test
Materials—
The following materials are needed in this test:
Q-tip, wooden stem
Acetone, "distilled-in-glass" Nanograde
2-dram vial with Teflon-lined cap
Amber glass bottle, 1-pint
Plastic Nalgene bottle, 1-quart
Procedure—
Swab test procedures are as follows:
0 Mark off five 2-inch-diameter circles distributed at the four
corners and center of a 1-m2 area for building surfaces or one
2-inch-diameter circle for vents and other surfaces.
j.
° Dip a wooden stem Q-tip in a 2-dram vial containing 1.5 ml of ace-
tone. Swab one circle at a time, dipping the Q-tip in the acetone
before and after each circle is swabbed.
0 When all circles have been swabbed, tightly seal the acetone-
containing vial with a Teflon-lined cap and discard the used swab.
A-10
-------
0 Preserve the collected sample at 4°C.
0 Prior to analysis, allow the sample to warm to ambient temperature.
0 To compensate for possible solvent evaporation during transport,
adjust the final volume of the sample with acetone to 1.5 ml.
0 Analyze the sample for suspected contaminant.
0 When resampling an area following surface decontamination, position
the sampling grid 6 inches to the right of the initial sampling
points or, if movement to the right is restricted, 6 inches downward.
Wet Wipe Test
Materials--
The following materials are needed in this test:
Cotton swab, degreased
Acetone, pesticide grade
Hexane, pesticide grade
Isooctane, pesticide grade
Metal clamp
Glass-stoppered glass jar
10-ml cone-shaped-bottom vial with glass stopper or
Teflon-lined screw cap
Procedure—
Wet wipe procedures are as follows:
0 Mark off a square area of approximately 0.25 m2 on the surface to be
wi ped.
0 While holding in a clean metal clamp, saturate a 10-g degreased
cotton swab with 20 to 30 ml of a 1:4 acetone/hexane mixture.
0 While still holding the cotton swab in the clamp, wipe the sampling
area back and forth repeatedly in a vertical direction, applying
moderate pressure.
0 Turn the swab over and wipe back and forth in the horizontal direc-
tion.
0 Store the used swab in a glass-stoppered glass jar until extraction
can be performed.
0 Extract the used swab with three fractions (200 ml each) of the 1:4
acetone/hexane mixture.
0 Pool the three fractions and dry under vacuum.
A-ll
-------
0 Clean the extraction residue by column chromatographic techniques.
0 Store the dried sample from the final cleanup step in a 10-ml cone-
shaped-bottom vial sealed with either a glass stopper or a Teflon-
lined screw cap.
0 Analyze the sample for suspected contaminants.
Dry-Wipe Test
Materials—
A 2.4-cm-diameter filter paper disk is required for this test.
Procedure--
Dry-wipe test procedures are as follows:
0 Using the tip of the thumb, wipe a 2.4-cm-diameter filter paper disk
in a Z or S pattern over a representative portion of the surface to
be sampled. The length of the wipe should be 50 cm. (The pressure-
bearing portion of the filter paper disk will be about 2 cm wide;
therefore, the area of the surface sampled will be approximately 100
cm2).
0 Avoid contacting excess dirt when wiping an area.
0 Test the sample with appropriate instruments for determining contami-
nation.
Sump Sampling
Materials—
The following materials are required for sump sampling:
Wastewater vacuum pump sampler
Tygon tubing, 3/8-inch i.d.
Amber glass bottle, 500-ml
Polyethylene bottle, 1-liter
Rubber stopper
Procedure--
Procedures for sump sampling are as follows:
0 Attach a clean piece of Tygon tubing (about 1 to 1.5 ft) to the
silicone rubber tubing outlet of the sampler.
0 Connect the other end of the Tygon tubing to the inlet tube in the
stopper of the sample container (polyethylene bottle for heavy metal
contamination, glass bottle for explosives contamination).
0 Place the sample container at the bottom of the sampler and secure
it with tape or padding.
A-12
-------
Close the sampler lid.
Attach a second piece of Tygon tubing of sufficient length to reach
the bottom of the sump to the silicone rubber tubing inlet of the
sampler.
Connect the strainer/weight to the other end of the Tygon tubing.
Lower the strainer/weight-bearing end of the tubing into the sump.
Set the volume selector control to the desired volume corresponding
to the head height, and turn the pump switch to "auto".
When the sample has been collected, open the sampler, remove the
bottle, and replace it with an empty bottle.
Remove the tubing assembly from the well.
Flush out the sampler by running a large volume of distilled water
through it.
Clean the strainer/weight with lab glassware detergent and rinse
with distilled water.
Replace the Tygon tubing between sampling of wells to avoid cross-
contamination of sump samples.
Preserve the sample at 4°C. Prior to analysis, allow the sample to
warm to ambient temperature.
Filter the sample through a Whatman 2 filter to remove suspended
insoluble material.
Analyze the filtrate and residue for suspected contaminants.
A-13
-------
REFERENCES
Benecks, P., et al. July 1983. Development of Novel Decontamination and
Inerting Techniques for Explosives-Contaminated Facilities. Phase I -
Identification and Evaluation of Concepts. Vols. 1 and ?..
DRXTH-TE-CR-83all.
Hawthorne, S. H. July 1982. Solvent Decontamination of PCB Electrical Equip-
ment. In: IEEE Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1A-18.
Jones, W. E. July 1982. Engineering and Development Support of General Decon
Technology for the U.S. Army's Installation Restoration Program. Task 5,
Facility Decontamination. Defense Technical Information Center, Alexandria,
Virginia. Pub. No. 49-5002-0005.
Marion, W. J. and Thomas, S.
DOW/EV/10128-1.
November 1980. Decommissioning Handbook.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Re-
sponse, Hazardous Response Support Division. Revised September 1982.
Interim Standard Operation Safety Guides.
A-14
-------
APPENDIX B. NON-AIR IMPACTS FROM THE
USE OF DUST SUPPRESSANT MEASURES
INTRODUCTION
Although the use of dust suppressants is a means of preserving air qual-
ity, it is necessary to examine the effects dust control materials may have on
non-air aspects of the environment. In this appendix, the effects of various
dust control materials on surface water, ground water, wildlife, plants, and
workers will be examined. The dust control materials are categorized as:
Films, Liners, Fabrics, Windscreens
Foam and Spray Systems
Liquid Chemicals
0 Bitumens
0 Adhesives
0 Surfactants
Salts
0 Water
FILMS, LINERS, FABRICS, WINDSCREENS
The chemical compositions of films, liners, fabrics, and windscreens pose
little or no threat to the environment. A nuisance may occur if the material
is damaged and blows onto nearby property.
FOAM AND SPRAY SYSTEMS
Foam and spray systems are mechanical devices which deliver water amended
with various surfactants. No environmental problems are associated with these
systems other than those posed by the surfactants, and by use of large amounts
of a liquid relative to water quality as discussed later.
B-l
-------
LIQUID CHEMICALS
Bitumens
Bituminous substances are those derived from petroleum refining. These
may be categorized as asphaltic compounds and petroleum resins. These com-
pounds are generally inert unless contaminated by aromatics or other hazardous
by-products of the petroleum refining process. They are applied as either
emulsions in water or as solutions in an organic solvent. The relatively low
solubility of asphaltics and resins in water limits their migration in either
surface or ground water. Once applied, these materials form a good bond with
soil particles; however, some migration may occur during a large precipitation
event soon after application.
Low toxicity to plant life is evidenced by the fact that these compounds
are used to hold mulches over seed beds. Acute oral toxicity tests conducted
on Coherex, a petroleum resin mixture, showed the material to be practically
non-toxic (LDgo > 16g/kg body wt.) (Bio-Technics, 1976). Workers should
observe good personal hygiene when handling these products, especially in
concentrated form. Eye protection, mist respirators, and protective clothing
are suggested.
Adhesives
The category of adhesive dust control products is large and diverse. It
includes such classes of compounds as synthetic resins, synthetic polymers
(amides, acrylics, polyethers, vinyl polymers, polysulfides), and natural
adhesives (lignin sulfonates, vegetable gums, soil enzymes). Little environ-
mental effects data is available on the synthetic adhesives when used as dust
control agents. Due to their adhesive nature, these compounds resist migration
after application. Polysulfides may be toxic to aquatic organisms if allowed
to enter surface water.
Vegetable gums and soil enzyme compounds have few adverse environmental
effects. Vegetable gums are easily biodegradable and are often used in mulches
to protect seed beds from erosion. Many of these same compounds are used as
human food additives. Soil enzymes are extracted from soil bacteria and, when
used properly, would be expected to cause few environmental problems. Lignin
sulfonates may cause aesthetic problems in surface water due to discoloration.
Toxic effects on aquatic organisms may also occur at high concentrations (7500
B-2
-------
ppm). Due to its slow movement through soils, lignin sulfonate has little
effect on ground water. It has been found to have no effect on seed germ-
ination and is essentially non-toxic (LD50 > 50g/kg body wt.). The FDA allows
the use of lignin sulfonate as a binding aid in animal feed and as a component
in paper and paperboard which comes into contact with aqueous or fatty foods
(Bureau of Mines, 1982).
Workplace hazards vary with the type of compound. It is suggested that
workers use protective clothing, eye protection, and appropriate respirators
when handling these materials. Some of these products may be corrosive to
skin and others may produce toxic compounds when burned or reacted with other
materials. For instance, some acrylics may produce hydrogen cyanide when
burned and polysulfides produce hydrogen sulfide when acidified.
Surfactants
As in the. case of adhesives, the surfactants used in dust control comprise
a large, diverse list. The three types of surfactants are cationic, anionic,
and nonionic. A mixture of anionic and nonionic surfactants is most commonly
used in dust control applications. There is evidence of adverse animal effects
from exposure to certain surfactants (Hrabak 1982, Kocher-Becker 1981, Van
Zutphen 1972) and care should be taken when handling the concentrated mater-
ials. Workers should wear protective clothing, eye
protection, and appropriate respirators.
SALTS
Due to their solubility, calcium chloride (CaCl0) and magnesium chloride
(MgClp) are capable of affecting the quality of surface and ground water.
Since these salts are hygroscopic, they remain wet and movement by air is
reduced. The salts therefore are transported through the environment by water
where they exist as positive and negative ions. The calcium and magnesium
ions are readily absorbed by the soil and generally will not migrate far from
the point of application; however, the chloride ion is essentially unaffected
by the soil and will move freely. Calcium and magnesium are abundant in
natural waters and the amount added by dust control would be rather insignifi-
cant. Chloride is also found in natural waters but at much lower concen-
trations.
B-3
-------
Salts may be toxic to plants at low concentrations depending upon plant
species, age, season and other factors. Salts are transported to plants
through the soil; therefore, plant mortality would depend upon proximity to
the point of application. Aquatic organisms demonstrate a tolerance to high
salt concentrations. Some species of freshwater fish have tolerated calcium
chloride concentrations as high as 22,000 ppm. Bottom-dwelling organisms may
suffer the most from salt contamination of still waters. The salt laden water
has a higher density than fresh water and will tend to stratify on the bottom
thereby subjecting these organisms to much higher salt concentrations. Terres-
trial organisms are most likely exposed to salt contamination by oral means.
They, too, demonstrate a tolerance to salts. A lethal oral dose in dogs was
found to be greater than 2g/kg body weight (Bureau of Mines, 1982).
Like other terrestrial organisms, humans would most likely experience
salt toxicity through oral administration. However, the dusts and mists
created by handling large quantities of the salts could irritate eyes, respi-
ratory system, or the skin. Protective clothing such as goggles, gloves,
respirators should be used.
The silicates used in dust control are sodium salts of silicic acid and
demonstrate a high pH in aqueous solution. Due to this high pH, these mate-
rials may damage living organisms upon direct contact. However, when applied
as for a dust control purpose, the silicates are diluted and neutralized to a
less hazardous state. These compounds ultimately decompose to silica and
soluble sodium salts. When handling silicates in concentrated form, workers
must wear protective clothing including goggles or face shields, gloves, and
respirators. The materials will produce skin and eye irritation and will also
form flammable hydrogen gas on prolonged contact with metals such as aluminum,
tin, lead, and zinc.
WATER
Water alone is often used as a method of dust control and in most ordinary
applications, would not pose an environmental threat. However, if applied to
a contaminated site, water could cause problems by carrying contaminants
off-site. This may occur in one of two ways: (1) water may dissolve contami-
nants from soil particles or (2) water may physically move contaminated soil
B-4
-------
particles. When dissolved, contaminants may enter ground water as well as
surface water. Suspended particles will be transported by surface run-off,
and sites awaiting clean-up may not have drainage containment facilities.
During active clean-up procedures, surface drainage will most likely be con-
tained; however, the use of water by itself as a dust control measure may
necessitate larger more expensive drainage containment facilities. Also,
water may leak from trucks or other equipment carrying contaminated soil
off-site.
B-5
-------
REFERENCES
Bio-Technics Laboratories, Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
No. 1-5-6162-2.
1976. Laboratory Report
Hrabak, A.H., F. Antoni and Maria T. Szabo. 1982. Damaging Effect of Detergents
on Human Lymphocytes. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination Toxicology
28, 504-511.
Kocher-Becker, Ursuia, Walter Kocher and Henrich Ockenfels. 1981. Thaiidomide-
Like Malformations Caused by a Tween Surfactant in Mice. Naturfonch 36c,
904-906.
United States Bureau of Mines. 1982. An Environmental Evaluation of Dust
Suppressants: Calcium Chloride and Ligninsulfonates: Draft Report.
Prepared by School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Contract
No. H0212027.
Van Zutphen, H., etal. 1972. The Interaction of Nonionic Detergents with Lipid
Bilayer Membranes. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 152, 755-756.
B-6
•&U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1985/646-l 16/20713
-------
-------
Environmental Protection
Agency
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Please make all necessary changes on the above label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE a;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
EPA/540/2-85/003
------- |