600283110
IRON AND STEEL PLANT OPEN SOURCE FUGITIVE- EMISSION CONTROL EVALUATION
by
Thomas Cuscino, Jr., Gregory E. Muleski, and
Chatten Cowherd,-Jr.
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Notice
This document is aprel-.. -.; ry e.^a^t
It has not been formally r " ^asc-a by r ' • -
should not at this stage be co.vrtru"--:
represent Agency policy. It it beir -c
lated for comment on its techr.ic a.1 ^ocura.y
and policy implications.
DRAFT
FINAL REPORT
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3177, Assignment No. 4
MRI Project No. 4862-L(4)
Date Prepared: August 31, 1982
-------
Abstract
Open dust aources in the iron and steel industry vere estimated to
•nit 88,800 tons/year suspended particulate in 1978 based on a 10 plant
survey. Of this,70, 13, and 122 were emitted by vehicular traffic on
unpaved roads, vehicular traffic on paved roads, and storage pile wind
erosion, respectively. Emission measurements, utilizing the exposure R
profile technique, indicate a 17% solution of a petroleum resin (Coherex )
in water on an unpaved road reduced heavy-duty vehicle emissions by
95.71 for total particulate, 94.5Z for particulate <15um,and 94.IX for
particulate <2.Sum (averaged over the first 48 hours after application).
Plain water reduced emissions 951 for all particle sizes half an hour a/ter
application. Four hours later, efficiency of watering had dropped to 552
(total), 49.6% (<15pm),and 61.1Z (<2.5un). Coherex on an unpaved road
travelled by light-duty vehicles reduced emissions by 99.5% (total),
98.61 (<15pm),and 97.4% (<2.5wtt),25 hours after application. Control
efficiency decayed to S3.7Z (total), 91.41 (<15v»),«nd 93.7Z (<2.5um),
51 hours after application.
On paved roads, vacuum sweeping reduced emissions 69.82 (total),
50.92 (<15wm), and 49.22 (<2.5pm), 2.8 hours after vacuuming. F«Aiy
minutes after water flushing, emissions were reduced by 54.12 (total),
48.82 (<15um), and 68.12 (<2.5um). Combined flushing and broom oveaping
reduced emissions by 69.32 (total), 78.02 (<15vjm), and 71.82 (<2.5wm), 40
minutes after application.
Control of emissions from coal storage piles varied from 902 to
almost zero depending on the type of treatment, length of time since
treatment was applied,and windspeed. Tests were performed using a
portable wind tunnel.
Relationships were developed to determine relative cost effectiveness
„<• r.~r,^ cn.f-r? eMssIon controls.
I,S. Envlronmonta! Protection
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory under
EPA Contract No. 68-02-3177, Work Assignment No. 4. Mr. Robert McCrillis
was the project officer. The report was prepared in Midwest Research Insti-
tute's Air Quality Assessment Section (Dr. Chatten Cowherd, Head). The
authors of this report were Mr. Thomas Cuscino, Jr., task leader,
Dr. Gregory E. Mules Id, and Dr. Chatten Cowherd. Exposure profiling was con-
ducted in the field under the direction of Dr. Mark Small and Mr. Russel
Bohn with assistance from Mr. Frank Pendleton, Mr. David Griffin, Mr. Steve
Cummins, Ms. Julia Poythress, Mr. Stan Christ and Mr. Pat Reider. Wind
tunnel testing was directed by Mr. Russel Bohn and Dr. Gregory Muleski.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
M. P. Schrag, Director
Environmental Systems Department
August 31, 1982
_ _ * . _
m
-------
CONTENTS
Preface , iii
Summary and Conclusions xi
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Variables Affecting Control Efficiency. . 3
1.2 Project Objectives 6
1.3 Report Structure 6
2.0 Selection of Sources, Sampling Methods, Sites
and Control Techniques 7
2.1 Survey of Open Dust Sources and Controls 7
2.2 Selection of Test Sites 13
2.3 Open Dust Sampling Methods 13
3.0 Source Testing by Exposure Profiling 19
3.1 Quality Assurance 19
3.2 Air Sampling Techniques and Equipment 22
3.3 Particulate Sample Handling and Analysis 24
3.4 Aggregate Material Sampling and Analysis 38
3.5 Results for Vehicular Traffic on Unpaved Roads. ... 40
3.6 Results for Vehicular Traffic on Paved Roads 57
3.7 Comparison of Predicted and Actual Uncontrolled
Emissions 70
4.0 Wind Erosion Testing by Portable Wind Tunnel 81
4.1 Quality Assurance 81
4.2 Air Sampling Technique and Equipment 81
4.3 Particulate Sample Handling and Analysis 83
4.4 Aggregate Material Sampling and Analysis 91
4.5 Results for Wind Erosion of Coal Piles 92
5.0 Open Dust Control Design, Operation and
Cost Parameters 105
5.1 Design/Operation Parameters ..... 105
5.2 Cost Parameters 105
5.3 Theoretical Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 105
^.O References * 7 12?/>.r
8.0 Glossary -429-/*>
8.0 English to Metric Unit Conversion Table -133-/ 3/
Appendices
A. Data Compilation from Materials Handling Flow Charts . A-l
B. Example Open Dust Source Control Survey Questionnaire. B-l
C. Miscellaneous Design/Operation and Cost Data C-l
-------
FIGURES
Number
1-1 Effect of vehicle speed, weight, and traffic density
on control performance 5
3-1 Map of plant F showing test sites 20
3-2 Map of plant B showing test sites 21
3-3 MRI exposure profiler 23
3-4 Equipment deployment for Runs F-27 through F-35 25
3-5 Equipment deployment for Runs F-36 through F-45
and F-58 through F-74 26
3-6 Equipment deployment for Runs B-50 through B-60 27
3-7 Decay in control efficiency of watering on unpaved
road under heavy-duty traffic 53
4-1 MRI portable wind tunnel 82
4-2 Equipment deployment for wind tunnel tests at plant F. . . 84
4-3 Test site locations at plant H 85
4-4 Sampling pan detail 86
4-5 Decay in control efficiency of latex binder applied
to coal storage piles 104
5-1 Graphical presentation of open dust control costs 113
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Open Dust Emission Factors Experimentally Determined
by MRI 2
1-2 Summary of Potential Open Dust Source Control
Techniques 3
2-1 Aggregate Materials Handled at Iron and Steel Plants
in 1978 10
2-2 1978 Inventory of Open Dust Source Contributions to
Suspended Particulate Emissions 12
2-3 Summary of Fugitive Emission Controls Used From 1978
to Present (by plant) 14
3-1 Quality Control Procedures for Sampling Media 28
3-2 Quality Control Procedures for Sampling Flow Rates .... 29
3-3 Quality Control Procedures for Sampling Equipment 30
3-4 Criteria for Suspending or Terminating an Exposure
Profiling Test 31
3-5 Moisture Analysis Procedures 39
3-6 Silt Analysis Procedures 41
3-7 Exposure Profiling Test Site Parameters 42
t
3-8 Plume Sampling Data for Heavy-Duty Vehicles on
Unpaved Roads 44
3-9 Particulate Concentration Measurements for Heavy-
Duty Traffic on Unpaved Roads 46
3-10 Aerodynamic Particle Size Data - Heavy-Duty Traffic
on Unpaved Roads 47
3-11 Isoldnetic Correction Parameters for Heavy-Duty
Traffic on Unpaved Roads 48
vn
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Number Page
3-12 Vehicular Traffic Data and Emission Factors for
Heavy-Duth Traffic on Unpaved Roads 49
3-13 Normalized Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty Traffic
on Unpaved Roads 51
3-14 Control Efficiencies for Heavy-Outy Traffic on
Unpaved Roads 52
3-15 Plume Sampling Data for Light-Duty Traffic on
Unpaved Roads 54
3-16 Particulate Concentration Measurements for Light-
Duty Traffic on Unpaved Roads 56
3-17 Aerodynamic Particle Size Data - Light-Duty
Traffic on Unpaved Roads 58
3-18 Isokinetic Correction Parameters for Light-
Duty Traffic on Unpaved Roads 59
3-19 Vehicular Traffic Data and Emission Factors for
Light-Duty Traffic on Unpaved Roads 60
3-20 Normalized Emission Factors for Light-Duty Traffic
on Unpaved Roads 61
3-21 Control Efficiencies of Coherex for Light-Duty
Traffic on Unpaved Roads 62
3-22 Plume Sampling Data for Paved Roads 65
3-23 Particulate Concentration Measurements for Paved
Roads 69
3-24 Aerodynamic Particle Size Data - Paved Roads 71
3-25 Isokinetic Correction Parameters for Paved Roads 72
3-26 Road Surface Characteristics and Emission Factors
for Paved Roads 73
3-27 Normalized Emission Factors for Vehicular Traffic
on Paved Roads 74
3-28 Control Efficiencies'for Paved Roads 75
3-29 Predicted Versus Actual Emissions (Unpaved Roads) 77
viii
-------
TABLES (Concluded)
Number Page
3-30 Predicted Versus Actual Emissions (Paved Roads). ..... 78
4-1 Quality Control Procedures for Sampling Flow Rates .... 87
4-2 Wind Erosion Test Site Parameters 93
4-3 Wind Erosion Sampling Parameters 94
4-4 Threshold Velocities for Wind Erosion 95
4-5 Aerodynamic Particle Size Data - Wind Erosion 96
4-6 Properties of Surfaces Tested . 98
4-7 Wind Erosion Test Results 99
4-8 Erosion Potentials for Coal 101
4-9 Twenty-Minute Emission Rates for Cambria Coking
Coal 102
4-10 Control Efficiencies for Wind Erosion of Coal
Storage Piles 103
5-1 Design/Operation Parameters - Paved Roads 106
5-2 Design/Operation Parameters - Unpaved Roads 106
5-3 Design/Operation Parameters - Unpaved Parking Lots
and Exposed Areas 107
5-4 Design/Operation Parameters—Storage Piles 108
5-5 Summary of Open Dust Control Cost Data 109
5-6 Open Dust Control Cost Comparison in Dollars Per
Unit of Treated Source Extent 110
5-7 Open Dust Control Cost Comparison in Dollars Per
Unit of Actual Source Extent Ill
-------
Notice
This document is a preli:.. '.nc/ry draft.
It has not been formally released by T~"
.should not at this stage be cc;\ctru- ". -
represent Agency policy. Ioi£".:-3ir cl
lated for conr.nent on its tc;'-:tl. " ,cu
and poli " y i-rf<~ li " "• = -
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to measure the control efficiency of vari-
ous techniques used to mitigate emissions from open dust sources in the iron
and steel industry, such as vehicular traffic on unpaved and paved roads and
wind erosion of storage piles and exposed areas. The control efficiency
was determined not only for total particulate (TP), but also for inhalable
particulate (IP)--particles less than 15 urn in aerodynamic diameter, and
for fine particulate (FP)—-particles less than 2.5 urn in aerodynamic diam-
eter. In addition to control efficiency measurement, parameters defining
control design, operation, and cost were quantified.
The methodology for achieving the above goals involved the measurement
of uncontrolled and controlled emission factors for emissions from vehicular
traffic on unpaved roads, vehicular traffic on paved roads, and storage pile
wind erosion. These sources were selected based on an open dust source
emission inventory for the iron and steel industry which showed the above
three sources to contribute 70.4%, 12.7%, and 11.5%, respectively, of the
88,800 T/yr of suspended particulate emitted by the industry.
The exposure profiling method developed by MRI was the technique uti-
lized to measure uncontrolled and coatrolled emission factors from vehicular
traffic on paved and unpaved roads. Exposure profiling of roadway emissions
involves direct isokinetic measurement of the total passage of open dust
emissions approximately 5 m downwind of the edge of the road by means of
simultaneous sampling at four to five points distributed vertically over
the effective height of the dust plume. Size distributions were measured
at the 1 and 3 m heights downwind utilizing cyclone precollectors followed
by parallel slot cascade impactors. During selected tests, size selective
inlets mounted on high volume samplers were also deployed downwind.
Nineteen tests of controlled and uncontrolled emissions from vehicular
traffic on unpaved roads were performed. Ten tests were of heavy-duty traf-
fic (greater than 30 tons) and 9 were of light-duty traffic (less than
3 tons).
In calculating the efficiency of a control technique from emission fac-
tor measurements collected during controlled and uncontrolled tests, the ef-
fect of testing during different periods in the lifetime of the control was
taken into account. The decay of control efficiency with time after appli-
cation has a number of causes, such as track-on from surrounding integrated
surfaces and mechanical abrasion of the treated road surface. Accordingly,
each value of control efficiency contained in this report includes the time
after application that the measurement was taken.
Two control techniques utilized to reduce emissions from heavy-duty
traffic on unpaved roads were tested: (1) a 17% solution of Coherex® in
water applied at an intensity of 0.86 £/m2 (0.19 gal/yd2), and (2) water
xi
-------
applied at an intensity of 0.59 £/m2 (0.13 gal/yd2). The control efficiency
for Coherex®, at the above application intensity, averaged over the first
48 hr after application, was 95.7% for TP, 94.5% for IP, and 94.1% for FP.
The control efficiency for watering at the above application intensity, 4.4 hr
after application, was 55.0% for TP, 49.6% for IP, and 61.1% for FP. The
control efficiency of watering at the above application intensity was above
95% for all particle sizes 1/2 hr after application.
Only one control technique for emissions from light-duty vehicles trav-
elling on unpaved roads was tested. The control measure was a 17% solution
of Coherex® in water at an application intensity of 0.86 £/m2 (0.19 gal/yd2).
The control efficiency of Coherex® at the above application intensity, 25 hr
after application, was 99.5% for TP, 98.6% for IP, and 97.4% for FP. This
road had been closed to traffic for a day. Fifty-one hours after applica-
tion, these efficiencies had decayed to 93.7% for TP, 91.4% for IP, and
93.7% for FP.
Three control techniques for mitigation of emissions from vehicles trav-
elling on paved roads were tested: (1) vacuum sweeping, (2) water flushing,
and (3) flushing with broom sweeping. The highest measured values for the
control efficiency of vacuum sweeping, occurring 2.8 hr after vacuuming,
were 69.8% for TP, 50.9% for IP, and 49.2% for FP. The control efficiency
for water flushing at 2.2 2/m2 (0.48 gal/yd2), approximately 40 min after
application, was 54.1% for TP, 48.8% for IP, and 68.1% for FP. The control
efficiency for flushing and broom sweeping approximately 40 min after appli-
cation with water applied at 2.2 2/m2 (0.48 gal/yd2), was 69.3% for TP, 78.0%
for IP, and 71.8% for FP.
Earlier MRI studies of open dust sources in the iron and steel industry
produced data bases which were used to develop predictive emission factor
equations. The precision factors associated with the paved and unpaved road
equations were 2.20 and 1.48, respectively. When the results of the 18 tests
of uncontrolled particulate emissions from vehicular traffic on roads per-
formed during this study were added to the data bases, the precision factors
increased to 3.95 and 1.98, respectively. These increases indicate the need
for possible refinement of the paved and unpaved road equations based on the
larger data bases now available.
The portable wind tunnel method was the technique utilized to measure
uncontrolled and controlled emission factors from storage pile wind erosion.
The wind tunnel method involves the measurement of the amount of emissions
eroded from a given surface under a known wind speed. MRI's portable open-
floored wind tunnel was placed directly on the surface to be tested and the
tunnel wind flow adjusted to predetermined center!ine speeds. The emissions
eroded from the surface were measured isokinetically at a single point in
the sampling section of the tunnel with a sampling train consisting of a
tapered probe, cyclone precollector, parallel slot cascade impactor, backup
filter, and high volume sampler.
Wind erosion from storage piles was quantified during 29 tests of un-
controlled and controlled emission factors. Nearly all of the tests were
conducted on coal surfaces with two control techniques being studied separ-
ately: (1) a 17% solution of Coherex® in water applied at an intensity of
xi i
-------
3.4 £/m2 (0.74 gal/yd2), and (2) a 2.8% solution of Dow Chemical M-167 Latex
Binder in water applied at an average intensity of 6.8 £/m2 (1.5 gal/yd2).
The control efficiency of Coherex® applied at the above intensity to an un-
disturbed steam coal surface approximately 60 days before the test, under a
wind of 15.0 m/s (33.8 mph) at 15.2 cm (6 in.) above the ground, was 89..6%
for TP and approximately 62% for IP and FP. The control efficiency of the
latex binder on a low volatility coking coal 2 days after application, under
a 14.3 m/s (32.0 mph) wind speed at 15.2 cm (6 in.) above the ground, was
37.0% for TP and near zero for IP and FP. However, when the wind speed was
increased to 17.2 m/s (38.5 mph), the control efficiency increased to 90.0%
for TP, 68.8% for IP, and 14.7% for FP. The efficiency under the same wind
speed, 17.2 m/s, decayed 4 days after application to 43.2% for TP, 48.1%
for IP, and 30.4% for FP.
Three iron and steel plants were surveyed to determine open source emis-
sion control design, operation and cost parameters. Design and operation
parameters included application intensity, application frequency, life expec-
tancy, applicator equipment manufacturer, normal operating speed, capacity,
fuel consumption, vehicle weight, number and capacity of nozzles at a spe-
cified pressure, and maintenance problems. Cost data included operating,
maintenance and capital investment costs. The operating and maintenance
costs were further subdivided into labor, gasoline and oil, maintenance and
repair, and depreciation costs. The capital investment costs included pur-
chase and installation of primary and ancillary equipment.
The conclusions gleaned from this study are as follows:
1. Open dust emissions from the entire integrated iron and steel
industry for 1978 were estimated at 88,800 T/yr of suspended
particulate. The total can be subdivided into the following
general categories:
Category Percent Contribution
Vehicular traffic on unpaved roads 70.4
Wind erosion 15.0
Vehicular traffic on paved roads 12.7
Continuous raw material handling operations 1.6
Batch raw material handling operations 0.3
2. A decay in control efficiency with time after application was
measured for most control techniques tested. This means that
a reported efficiency value has meaning only when given in
conjunction with a time after a specified application.
3. There is some indication that, soon after application of some
control measures, control efficiency varies as a function of
particle size, with the efficiency decreasing with decreasing
particle size. However, in time this difference disappears
and the control efficiency then shows no dependence on particle
size.
xiii
-------
4. Wind erosion from the coarse aggregate storage piles tested and ob-
served at iron and steel plants is probably much less than previously
thought. Testing has shown that for typical storage pile surfaces,
10 m wind speeds in excess of 14.8 m/s (33.2 mph) are necessary for
wind erosion to even begin. Also, crusts on piles and exposed sur-
faces are very effective inhibitors of wind erosion as long as the
crust remains unbroken. Current thinking suggests that the major
wind erosion problem is expected to exist on uncrusted areas sur-
rounding the piles, on uncrusted exposed areas and on unpaved roads
and uncrusted shoulders. Also, piles which have dozer or scraper
traffic on them (atypical in the iron and steel industry) are sus-
ceptible to wind erosion. Finally, as would be expected, uncrusted
piles of fine, dry material are also susceptible to wind erosion.
5. The control efficiency of the latex binder tested for effectiveness
in reducing wind erosion increased with increasing wind speeds. It
is possible that this may apply to other wind erosion dust supres-
sants and to a broader range of wind speeds than those tested, but
the data are still too sparse to support that inference.
6. The optimal cost-effective technique for applying open dust con-
trols is to make the application and then reapply only after the
initial application has decayed to zero control efficiency. How-
ever, this will yield only about 50% control efficiency, assuming
the technique started at 100%. In controlled emissions trading
(such as offsets, banking and bubbles), much more than 50% reduc-
tion in open dust source emissions may be needed. Thus, optimiza-
tion of cost-effectiveness in the control of open dust source emis-
sions must always be considered in the context of a minimally ac-
ceptable level of control.
There is no clear-cut definition of "best" control strategy for
open dust source emissions. Two possible definitions are:
a. That strategy which achieves the constraint of an acceptable
level of emissions reduction at the least cost; and
b. That strategy which achieves the minimally acceptable level oi
control and is the least expensive per unit mass of emissions 0
reduced.
Although the cost of (b) cannot be less than that of (a),Ai£ may
indeed prove to be more desirable in the long term because greater
offsets are possible and thus represents the most efficient use
of funds possible.
-------
7. Evaluation of the emission reduction effectiveness of an open dust
source control measure requires the acquisition of detailed performance
data on the control measure. The performance data gathered to date
on open dust sources in the iron and steel industry has focused on
the efficiencies of freshly applied control measures for given sets
of application parameters. Additional field test would be required
to determine the long term efficiency decay.
8. As with the initial control efficiency, the decay rate of a control
measure should depend in part on the application parameters. Also,
there may be a residual effect of previous control applications
which changes the shape of the decay of curve, although this residual
effect may become less important after repeated reapplication-decay
cycles. Theoretically, a mathematical relationship could be developed
which expresses mean control efficiency (during the period between
applications) as a function of the application parameters and the
frequency of application once a sufficiently large emissions data
base has been obtained.
9. A likely effectiveness parameter for an unpaved road treated with a
chemical binder is the surface silt loading. This parameter, which
appears in the emission factor equation for paved roads, is a
measure of the dust entrainment potential of a paved road. Limited
measurements of loadings on chemically treated unpaved roads shows
that the loadings correlate with controlled emissions.
-------
10. The current open source emissions data base is quite limited compared
to that for process sources. Predicted emissions for open sources
are thus subject to a greater uncertainty, perhaps as high as a
factor of 2 or 3 compared to +50 percent for process sources. This
level of uncertainty leads to corresponding levels of uncertainty
when implementing emissions trading policies. There are several
parameters affecting the overall efficiency of open source emission
control technology. Taking unpaved roads as an example, the frequency
of application and the application rate, or intensity, of the
chemical suppressant are of paramount importance. The current data
base does not include control efficiency decay measurements for any
suppressant at even one set of these parameters. This situation
obviously leads to large uncertainties in any emission trade.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Previous studies of open dust participate emissions from integrated
iron and steel plants have provided strong evidence that open dust sources
such as vehicular traffic on unpaved and paved roads, aggregate material
handling, and wind erosion should occupy a prime position in control stra-
tegy development.1'2 These conclusions were based on comparability between
industry-wide uncontrolled emissions from open dust sources and typically
controlled fugitive emissions from major process sources such as steel-making
furnaces, blast furnaces, coke ovens, and sinter machines. Moreover, pre-
liminary cost-effectiveness analysis of promising control options for open
dust sources indicated that control of open dust sources might result in
significantly improved air quality at a lower cost in relation to control
of process sources. Cost-effectiveness is defined as dollars expended per
unit mass of particulate emissions prevented by control. These preliminary
conclusions warranted the gathering of more definitive data on control per-
formance and costs for open dust sources in the steel industry.
The cost reduction potential of open dust sources has not been missed
by the iron and steel industry. With the advent of the Bubble Policy (Al-
ternative Emissions Reduction Options) on December 11, 1979, (revised April 7,
1982) the industry has recognized the economics of controlling open dust
sources as compared to implementing more costly controls on stack and pro-
cess fugitive sources of particulate emissions. However, as a requirement
of the Bubble Policy, it must be demonstrated that no net gain in emissions
occurs from an imaginary bubble surrounding the plant.
In order to demonstrate that there is no net gain in emissions as a
result of a proposed controlled trading scenario, the controlled emission
rate for an open dust source must be estimated using the following equation:
R = Me(l-C)/2,000
where: R = mass emission rate (tons/year)
M = annual source extent
e = uncontrolled emission factor, i.e., pounds of uncontrolled
emissions per unit of source extent
C = overall control efficiency expressed as a fraction.
Values for the uncontrolled emission factor (e) can be calculated using the
predictive emission factor equations shown in Table 1-1. These predictive
equations are the outcomes of numerous prior MRI field tests.1'-2'3'4'5 Pa-
rameters which may affect particulate emission levels from open sources such
as moisture and silt contents of the emitting material or equipment charac-
teristics were identified and measured during the testing process. For those
sources wtth a sufficient number of tests, multiple linear regression formed
the basis upon which significant variables were identified and then used in
developing the predictive equation.
-------
TABLE 1-1. OPEN DUST EMISSION FACTORS EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED BY flRI
1.
2.
1
/|
5.
6.
7
n
Source category
Unpaved roads
Paved roads
Batch load- in (e ci front-
end loader, rallcar dump)
stacker, transfer station)
Active storage pile mainte-
nance and traffic
Active storage pile wind
erosion
end loader, railcar dump)
Measure of extent
Vehicle-miles traveled
Vehicle-miles traveled
loaded in
loaded in
Tons of material put
through storage
Tons of material put
through storage
loaded out
land
Emission factor3
(Ib/unit of source extent)
so (* \ Is \ fW\°-7 /w\°-B d
5'9 \W \W \3/ UJ 3T3
0.09 1 («) (4,) (rJjH,,) (S)0'7
\N7 Vlu/ \ I,UOu7 \ 3;
ooolg (1) (S) (S)
. 2 0-3.1
M M
\ Tfi \ r i
»2' to/
„ oolfl (I) (5) do)
2
/MV
(9
°-10K (o) (A)
0 05 IIT-) iTi^r) (tr) (!mi
M.b/ \?3j/ Vlb/ \907
/S\ /U\ /h\
0001P is) U; (s)
2 o..Tn
/M\ / V\
(5) (BY)
3100 &)&)&)
2
(P-E\
\5rj /
s
S
w
L
II
M
Y
K
d
t
h
D
e
P-E
N
I
w
h
Correction parameters
= Silt content of aggregate or road
surface material (%)
= Average vehicle speed (mph)
= Average vehicle weight (tons)
= Surface dust loading on traveled
portion of road (Ib/mile)
= Mean wind speed at 4 m above
ground (mph)
= Unbound moisture content of
aggregate or road surfarp
material (%)
= Dumping device capacity (yd3)
= Activily factorb
= Number of dry days per year
= Percentage of time wind speed ex-
ceeds 12 mph at 1 ft above ground
= Percentage of time unobstructed wind
speed exceeds 12 mph at mean pile
height
= Duration of material storage (days)
= Surface erodibility (tons/acre/year)
= Thorn thwaite's Precipitation-
Evaporation Index
- Number of active travel lanes
- Industrial road augmentation
factor
= Average number of vehicle wheels
= Drop height (ft)
a Represents particulate smaller than 30 |im in diameter based on particle density of 2.5 g/cm1.
b Equals 1.0 for front-end loader maintaining pile tidiness and 50 round trips of customer trucks per day in the storage area.
c * Equals 7.0 for trucks coming from unpaved to paved roads and releasing dust from vehicle underbodies;
* Equals 3.5 when 20% of the vehicles are forced to travel temporarily with one set of wheels on an unpaved road berm while passing on narrow
roads;
* Equals 1.0 for tr?ffic entirely on paved surfaces.
-------
The annual source extent can be estimated by plant management from
plant records and discussions with operating personnel. The variable with
the least accurate data to support an estimate of controlled emissions is
the control efficiency. Table 1-2 presents a summary of open dust source
controls that are or have been used in the iron and steel industry. Control
efficiency values are needed for all the techniques shown in Table 1-2.
TABLE 1-2. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL OPEN DUST SOURCE CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Source
Control technique
I. Unpaved roads and parking lots.
II. Paved roads and parking lots.
III. Material handling and storage
pile wind erosion.
IV. Conveyor transfer stations.
V. Exposed area wind erosion.
A. Watering
B. Chemical treatment6
C. Paving
D. Oiling
A. Sweeping
1. Broom
a. Wet
b. Dry
2. Vacuum
B. Flushing
A. Watering
B. Chemical treatment11
A. Enclosures
B. Water sprays
C. Chemical sprays
A. Watering
B. Chemical treatment'
C. Vegetation
D. Oiling
For example: (1) salts, (2) lignin sulfonates, (3) petroleum resins,
(4) wetting agents, and (5) latex binders.
1.1 VARIABLES AFFECTING CONTROL EFFICIENCY
Open dust source control efficiency values can be affected by four broad
categories of variables: (a) time-related variables, (b) control application
variables, (c) equipment characteristics, and (d) characteristics of surface
to be treated.
-------
1.1.1 Time-Related Variables
Because of the finite durability of all surface-treatment control tech-
niques, ranging from hours (watering) to years (paving), it is essential to
tie an efficiency value to a frequency of application (or maintenance).
For measures of lengthy durability, the maintenance program required to sus-
tain control effectiveness should be indicated. One likely pitfall to be
avoided is the use of field data on a freshly applied control measure to
represent the lifetime of the measure.
The climate, for the most part, accelerates the decay of control per-
formance adversely through weathering. For example, freeze-thaw cycles
break up the crust formed by binding agents; precipitation washes away water-
soluble chemical treatments like lignin sulfonates, and solar radiation
dries out watered surfaces. On the other hand, light precipitation might
improve the efficiency of water extenders and hygroscopic chemicals like
calcium chloride, and will definitely improve efficiency of watering.
1.1.2 Control Application Variables
The control application variables affecting control performance are:
(a) application intensity; (b) application frequency; (c) dilution ratio;
and (d) application procedure. Application intensity is the volume of solu-
tion placed on the surface per unit area of surface. The higher the inten-
sity, the better the expected control efficiency. However, this relation-
ship applies only to a point, because too intense an application will begin
to run off the surface. The point where runoff occurs depends on the slope
and porosity of the surface.
1.1.3 Equipment Characteristics
The equipment characteristics that affect control efficiency values
are those involved in imparting energy to the treated surface which might
break the adhesive bonds keeping fine participate composing the surface from
becoming airborne. For example, vehicle weight and speed can affect the
control efficiency for chemical treatment of unpaved roads. An increase in
either variable serves to accelerate the decay in efficiency. Figure 1-1
is a general plot portraying the change in rate of decay of the control ef-
ficiency for a chemical suppressant applied to an unpaved road as a func-
tion of vehicle speed, weight, and traffic volume.
1.1.4 Characteristics of Surface to be Treated
Any surface characteristics which contribute to the breaking of a sur-
face crust will affect the control efficiency. For example, for unpaved
road controls, road structure characteristics affect control efficiency.6
These characteristics are: (a) combined subgrade and base bearing strength;
(b) amount of fine material (silt and clay) on the surface of the road; and
(c) the friability of the road surface material. Unacceptable values for
these variables mainly affect'the performance of chemical controls. Low
bearing strength causes the road to flex and rut in spots with the passage
-------
Increasing Vehicle
Speed, Weight, and
Traffic Density
Figure 1-1
Time After Application
Effect of vehicle speed, weight, and traffic density
on control performance.
-------
of heavy trucks; this destroys the compacted surface enhanced by the chemi-
cal treatment. A lack of fine material in the wearing surface deprives the
chemical treatment of the increased particle surface area necessary for
interparticle bonding. Finally, the larger particles of a friable wearing
surface material simply break up under the weight of the vehicles and cover
the treated road with a layer of untreated dust.
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this project was to provide data that will
document quantities of particulates generated from controlled open dust
sources at steel plants and the cost-effectiveness of control procedures
for eliminating or reducing emissions. The separate tasks necessary to
achieve the above objective were:
1. Conduct field tests to measure emissions from open dust
sources in order to determine the efficiency of selected
control procedures.
2. Evaluate data obtained in the test program in order to
determine the change in efficiency over time.
3. Develop design and operating information on all control
procedures evaluated, including optimum operating proce-
dures; operator and material requirements; design param-
eters; capital, operating and maintenance costs; and
energy requirements.
1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE
This report is structured as follows: (a) Section 2.0 contains the
results of a 10-plant survey to determine the extent of open dust sources
and controls in the iron and steel industry; (b) Section 3.0 contains the
methodology and results of source testing via exposure profiling; (c) Sec-
tion 4.0 contains the methodology and result of wind erosion testing via a
portable wind tunnel; (d) Section 5.0 contains the presentation of cost,
design, and operating information related to control techniques; and (e)
Sections 6.0 through 9.0 present additional research needs, references, glos-
sary and English to metric conversion units, respectively.
This report contains both metric and English units. In the text, most
numbers are reported in metric units with English units in parentheses.
For numbers commonly expressed in metric units in the air pollution field,
no English equivalent is given, i.e., particle size is in urn, density is in
g/cro3, and concentration is in ug/m3.
Numbers in this report are generally rounded to three significant fig-
ures; therefore, columns of numbers may not add to the exact total listed.
Rounding to three significant figures produces a rounding error of less than
0.5%.
-------
2.0 SELECTION OF SOURCES, SAMPLING METHODS,
SITES AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
In order to select the control techniques that should be tested, a sur-
vey was conducted to ascertain the most important open dust sources as de-
termined by their uncontrolled emission rates. The survey was also designed
to determine the control techniques typically applied to these sources at
iron and steel plants. Finally, surveyed plants utilizing the most typical
control techniques for the most important sources were selected as candidate
test sites.
2.1 SURVEY OF OPEN DUST SOURCES AND CONTROLS
In order to calculate an open dust emissions inventory and determine
what control techniques were being utilized in the iron and steel industry,
a survey of 10 plants was conducted. The survey was conducted using mate-
rials handling flow charts to be completed by each plant.
The flow charts displayed several alternate handling schemes for the
following materials:
1. Coal
2. Iron ore pellets
3. Unagglomerated iron ore
4. Limestone/dolomite
5. Sinter, nodules, and briquettes
6. Coke
7. Sinter input (flux, iron ore, and coke fines)
8. Slag
The completed flow charts for a specific plant provided information
on: (a) the materials handling routes used at the plant; (b) the amount of
material passing through each handling step; (c) physical characteristics
of the handling equipment (e.g., bucket size, drop height, etc.); and (d)
the handling steps that are controlled and the type of control utilized.
Through the assistance of the American Iron and Steel Institute (Mr. John
Barker, Chairman of the AISI Fugitive Emissions Committee, and Mr. William
Benzer), the following companies agreed to complete the materials handling
flow charts for the indicated plants:
Armco Steel, Incorporated
Middletown Works
Houston Works
Inter!ake, Incorporated
Chicago Plant (coke ovens and blast furnace)
Works at Riverdale (BOFs)
-------
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Burns Harbor-
Sparrows Point
National Steel Corporation
River Rouge Plant (coke ovens and blast furnaces)
Works at Ecorse (BOFs and EAFs)
U.S. Steel Corporation
Geneva Works
Gary Works
Jones and Laugh!in Steel Corporation
Aliquippa Works
Indiana Harbor Works
Appendix A presents materials handling data compiled from the charts for
the above 10 plants (Inter!ake's Chicago plant and the works at Riverdale
are counted as one complete facility, National's River Rouge Plant and the
works at Ecorse are treated as one facility).
2.1.1 Updated Emissions Inventory
The completed materials handling flow charts for the 10 plants provided
input data for an industry-wide emissions inventory of open dust sources.
An initial inventory was developed in Reference 2 and is updated in this
report using the most current emission factors (Table 1-1) as well as re-
vised (1978) source extent data obtained from the 10-plant survey. Details
of the inventory calculations are given in the following paragraphs.
2.1.1.1 Vehicular Traffic on Unpaved Surfaces-
Emission factors for light, medium, and heavy duty traffic on unpaved
roads were calculated using the predictive equation shown in Table 1-1.
Since the 4-plant survey report in Reference 2 contained more detailed traf-
fic data than the 10-plant survey described in Section 2.1, the values for
the correction parameters in the predictive emission factor equation as well
as the values for the source extent were calculated from the 4-plant survey.
Finally, it was assumed that there were 50 major plants in the nation, each
producing the emission rate calculated for the average plant.
The emission factor for storage pile maintenance and related traffic
was developed from the emission factors calculated in the 4-plant survey.
Separate weighted emission factors were determined for pellets and coal.
The weighted emission factors were multiplied by the 1978 nationwide ton-
nages of these materials received at iron and steel plants in order to cal-
culate the emission rate. Finally, the calculated emission rate for pellets
and coal was linearly scaled by the weight ratio of all aggregate materials
handled to the sum of coal and pellets handled. In this manner, the total
nationwide emission rate for pile maintenance and other traffic associated
with storage of all aggregate material was calculated.
An emission factor for vehicular traffic on unpaved parking lots was
calculated using the unpaved road equation in Table 1-1. The following as-
sumptions were made regarding correction parameters and source extent:
8
-------
1. The 449,200 employees of the iron and steel industry involved with
the sale and production of iron and steel products in 1978 drive to work.
2. An average of two people travel in each car.
3. Each person works 250 days/year.
4. Fifty percent of cars use unpaved parking lots.
5. Cars travel an average of 200 ft in and 200 ft out of lots each day.
6. Cars travel at an average speed of 10 mph.
7. Silt content of unpaved parking lots aggregate = 12%.
2.1.1.2 Vehicular Traffic on Paved Roads—
The emission factor for paved roads was calculated as the average of
eight tests performed by MRI at iron and steel plants.2 The emission fac-
tor was then multiplied by the average source extent (vehicle-miles trav-
eled) calculated from the 4-plant survey. Finally, the emission rate for
paved road traffic at the average plant was multiplied by 50 in order to
extrapolate to nationwide emissions.
2.1.1.3 Batch and Continuous Drop Operations--
The following average values obtained from the 10-plant survey were
used in calculating emissions from batch and continuous drop operations:
1. Sixty-five percent of the raw aggregate received at the average
plant arrives by barge and 35% by rail.
2. The 35% arriving by rail is unloaded in 100 ton batches and is
dropped an equivalent of 5 exposed feet.
3. Of the 65% arriving by barge, half is batch unloaded by a 12 yd3
clamshell and dropped 24 ft, while half is continuously unloaded and dropped
10 ft.
4. The average raw and intermediate aggregate material passes through
seven transfer stations in its lifetime at the average iron and steel plant
and is dropped each time an average of 8 ft.
5. Eighty percent of the raw and waste material handled in iron and
steel plants is stored in open piles.
6. Of the 80% stored in the open, 50% is loaded into the pile by
stacker, 25% by clamshell, and 5% by truck or scraper.
7. During load-in of material to an open storage pile, the average
12 yd3 clamshell drops material 30 ft; the average stacker drops material
13 ft; and the average 35 ton capacity haul truck or scraper drops material
5 ft.
-------
8. Of the 80% stored in the open, 35% is loaded out of the pile by
clamshell, 30% by bucket-wheel, 10% by front-end loader, and 5% by miscel-
laneous techniques.
9. During load-out of material from an open storage pile, the average
10 yd3 clamshell drops material 5 ft; the average bucket-wheel drops mate-
rial 10 ft; and the average 10 yd3 front-end loader drops material 5 ft.
10. The average plant with OHF or BOF shops produces most of its own
coke and sinter and sends most of it directly to the blast furnace without
open storage.
The two aggregates selected as representative of all aggregate mate-
rials were coal and iron-bearing pellets. These particular materials were
selected because: (a) they include about 50% of the total aggregate han-
dled at iron and steel plants, and (b) more data are available on the silt
and moisture of these materials than other aggregate materials stored in
iron and steel plants.
Silt and moisture measurements obtained during the 4-plant survey and
during past MRI emission factor testing efforts were averaged in an attempt
to obtain representative nationwide values. For coal, the average silt and
moisture percentages were 5.0 and 4.8, respectively; and for pellets, the
average silt and moisture percentages were 4.9 and 2.1, respectively.
Based on the above assumptions and the average silt and moisture values,
1978 nationwide emission rates for coal and pellet batch and continuous drop
sources were calculated. The sum of these emission rates was then scaled
linearly by the weight ratio of total aggregate placed in open storage to
the sum of coal and pellets handled. (The amounts of each material handled
in 1978 are shown in Table 21.) In this fashion, the emission rates for
total aggregate batch drop and continuous drop operations were calculated.
TABLE 2-1. AGGREGATE MATERIALS HANDLED AT IRON AND
STEEL PLANTS IN 1978
Material
Aggregate type
Consumption in 1978
(106 tons)
Coal
Pellets
Natural iron ore
Flux
Sinter
Coke
Slag
Raw
Raw
Raw
Raw
Intermediate
Intermediate
Waste
67.5
86.9
14.4
28.7
35.6
55.6
43.8
Source: 1978 Annual Statistics of the American Iron and Steel Institute.
10
-------
2.1.1.4 Wind Erosion--
The emission factors for wind erosion from pellet and coal piles were
calculated using the storage pile wind erosion equation in Table 1-1. Jhe
correction parameters were obtained from both the 10-plant and the previous
4-plant surveys.
The emission rates for coal and pellets were calculated by multiplying
the emission factors by the 1978 nationwide amounts of coal and pellets
handled at iron and steel plants. The total emission rate for wind erosion
from all raw and waste aggregate piles was calculated by linearly scaling
the sum of the emission rates for coal and pellets by the weight ratio of
the total raw and waste aggregate handled to the sum of the coal and pel-
lets handled.
The emission factor for wind erosion of bare areas was calculated as a
weighted average of the emission factors for two of the four previous sur-
veyed plants reported in Reference 2. These two plants were most represen-
tative of the climate experienced by the majority of the industry. The plant
emission factors were weighted by source extent (acres exposed).
The emission rate for the average plant was calculated by multiplying
the weighted average emission factor by the arithmetic average source ex-
tent observed at the four previously surveyed plants. Finally, the nation-
wide emission rate was obtained by multiplying the emission rate for the
average plant by 50, which is the number of major plants estimated to exist
in the country.
2.1.1.5 Emissions Inventory Summary—
The updated inventory, shown in Table 2-2, yields a source ranking simi-
lar to the inventory published earlier.2 Vehicular traffic on unpaved sur-
faces accounts for 70% of the total open dust source emissions while batch
and continuous drop operations combine for less than 2% of the total.
The data base on the field performance of control measures for open
dust sources is small. Therefore, control measure testing should be dis-
tributed in relation to the magnitude of uncontrolled emissions. According
to Table 2-2, testing should focus on control measures applicable to:
Unpaved roads;
Paved roads;
Storage pile maintenance;
Storage pile wind erosion;
Exposed area wind erosion;
Unpaved parking lots; and
Conveyor transfer stations.
2.1.2 Summary of Current Industry Control Practices
Analysis of the materials handling flow charts for the 10 surveyed inte-
grated iron and steel plants indicate that a number of control techniques
were being applied in 1978 to open dust sources at several locations. These
11
-------
TABLE 2-2. 1978 INVENTORY OF OPEN DUST SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUSPENDED PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
1978 Nationwide suspended
particulate emission rate
for the iron and steel in-
dustry uncontrolled8 Percent of
Source (tons/yr) total emissions
Vehicular traffic on unpaved surfaces 70.4
Unpaved roads 50,100
Storage pile maintenance 10,800
Unpaved parking lots 1,600
Vehicular traffic on paved surfaces 11,300 12.7
Batch drop operations 0.3
Barge unloading by clamshell 75
Railcar unloading 11
Storage pile load-in by clamshell 107
Storage pile load-in by truck/scraper 3
Storage pile load-out by clamshell 25
Storage pile load-out by front-end loader 8
Continuous drop operations 1.6
Barge unloading by bucket ladder or self unloader 48
Conveyor transfer stations 1,220
Storage pile load-in by stacker 117
Storage pile load-out by bucket wheels 53
Wind erosion 15.0
Storage piles 10,200
Exposed areas 3 110
88,800
a Except that natural control due to precipitation is included.
-------
are summarized in Table 2-3 along with control data gathered from other in-
formation sources. Table 2-3 is by no means a complete industry survey,
but is a complete summary of 10 of the approximately 50 major integrated
plants in the country.
2.2 SELECTION OF TEST SITES
Tables 2-2 and 2-3 formed the basis for test site selection by indi-
cating the largest open dust sources in the industry, the control techniques
in use, and some of the sites where these techniques are applied.
It was decided to test unpaved and paved road control techniques (first
and second largest sources) at Armco's Middletown and Houston Works, since
many different techniques were available for testing at each site. Armco's
Middletown and Bethlehem's Burns Harbor Plants were selected for testing of
controls for the third largest source, wind erosion.
Testing at Armco's Middletown plant was especially desirable since it
afforded the opportunity to test before and after the implementation of an
extensive open dust source control program proposed under the Bubble Policy.
These controls were completely implemented by August 1980.
2.3 OPEN DUST SAMPLING METHODS
Open dust emissions are especially difficult to characterize for the
following reasons:
1. Emission rates have a high degree of temporal variability.
2. Emissions are discharged from a wide variety of source configura-
tions.
3. Emissions are comprised of a wide range of particle size, includ-
ing coarse particles which deposit immediately adjacent to the source.
The scheme for quantification of emission factors must effectively deal
with these complications, to yield source-specific emission data needed to
evaluate the priorities for emission control and the effectiveness of control
measures.
Four basic techniques have been utilized in testing open dust sources:
1. The upwind/downwind method involves measurement of concentra-
tions upwind and downwind of the source, utilizing ground-based samplers
(usually hi-vol samplers) under known meteorological conditions. Atmospheric
dispersion equations are used to back-calculate the emission rate which most
nearly produces the measured concentrations.
2. MRI's exposure profiling method involves direct measurement
of the total passage of open dust source emissions immediately downwind of
the source by means of simultaneous multipoint sampling over the effective-
cross-section of the open dust source emission plume. This technique uses
13
-------
TABLE 2-3. SUMMARY OF FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROLS USED FROM 1978 TO PRESENT (BY PLANT)
Source
Control practice
Plant(s)
I. Unpaved roads
II. Paved roads
III. Storage pile (maintenance
and wind erosion)
IV. Unpaved parking lots
A. Watering
B. Oiling
C. Chemical dust suppressants
D. Paving
A. Flushing
B. Wet broom sweeping
C. Vacuum sweeping
A. Watering
B. Chemical sprays
A. Paving
B. Chemical dust suppressants
Armco - Houston Works
1. National Steel - Granite City
Steel Div.
2. J&L Steel - Aliquippa Works
Armco - Middletown Works
Armco - Middletown Works
1. Armco - Middletown Works
2. Armco - Houston Works
Armco - Houston Works
Armco - Middletown Works
1. Armco - Houston Works
2. Bethlehem Steel - Burns Harbor
3. U.S. Steel - Gary Works
4. U.S. Steel - Geneva Works
5. Armco - Middletown Works
1. Bethlehem Steel - Burns Harbor
2. National Steel - Great Lakes Div.
Armco - Middletown Works
Armco - Middletown Works
-------
TABLE 2-3. (concluded)
Source
Control practice
Plant(s)
V. Conveyor transfer stations A. Enclosures
B. Water sprays
C. Chemical sprays
VI. Exposed area wind erosion Vegetation
1. Armco - Middletown Works
2. Bethlehem Steel - Burns Harbor
3. Interlake Steel - Chicago
4. J&L Steel - Aliquippa Works
5. U.S. Steel - Geneva Works
1. Armco-Middletown Works
2. Bethlehem Steel - Burns Harbor
3. U.S. Steel - Geneva Works
4. Armco - Houston Works
Bethlehem Steel - Sparrows Point
Armco - Middletown Works
-------
a mass-balance calculation scheme similar to EPA Method 5 rather than re-
quiring indirect calculation through the application of a generalized atmo-
spheric dispersion model. Moreover, based on MRI field tests of several
types of open dust sources, the accuracy of measurements obtained by expo-
sure profiling is better than that achievable by the upwind/downwind method,
even with site-specific calibration of the dispersion model used in the lat-
ter method.
3. The tracer method involves the controlled release of a known
amount of tracer (e.g., SF6) at the source. Downwind from the source, the
tracer concentration as well as the dust concentration from the source are
measured via colocated samplers. Finally, the open dust source emission rate
is calculated using the following relationship:
ER _ C
_E ~ _£
ERt Ct
where: ER = Particulate emission rate
ER. = Tracer emission rate
i*
C = Particulate concentration
C. = Tracer concentration
The use of tracers is complicated by two factors: (1) it is difficult to dis-
perse the tracer such that its initial spread matches that of the open dust
source, and (2) the tracer is normally a gas or a fine particulate which does
not have the settling characteristics of the dust from the open source.
4. The wind tunnel method for measuring wind erosion emission involves
the generation of a known wind speed and the measurement of the amount of
emissions blown from a given surface. A portable wind tunnel which can be
utilized to measure wind erosion emissions j_n situ is preferable to collect-
ing a sample of the surface in the field and conducting the experiment in a
laboratory wind tunnel. The second technique creates the problem that the
surface is never reconstructed in exactly the same fashion as it exists in
the field. For example, a surface crust which may exist in the field will
be almost completely destroyed in the collection process, making it impossible
to reconstruct in the laboratory.
Several of the available fugitive emission factors for integrated iron
and steel plants have resulted from estimation techniques rather than mea-
surement techniques. Estimating techniques include: (a) use of fixed per-
cent of uncontrolled stack emissions; (b) application of data from similar
processes; (c) engineering calculations; and (d) visual correlation of opa-
city and mass emissions. Wide use of estimating techniques has been employed
because of the difficulty of testing and the lack of recognized standardized
methods for measuring open dust emissons.
The most suitable and accurate technique for quantifying open dust sour-
ces (materials handling, vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, etc.) in the
iron and steel industry has been shown to be exposure profiling.1 The method
is source-specific and its increased accuracy over the upwind/downwind method
16
-------
and the tracer method is a result of the fact that emission factor calcula-
tion is based on direct measurement of the variable sought, i.e., mass of
emissions per unit time.
For testing of wind erosion the portable wind tunnel method is MRI's
preferred technique because it allows for j_n situ measurement of erosion
rates under predetermined, controlled wind conditions. In contrast to this,
the upwind/downwind method is beset with difficulties for wind erosion test-
ing because the onset of natural erosion and its intensity is beyond the
control of the investigator; moreover when natural erosion is occurring, in-
terference caused by erosion of sources located upwind of the test sources
causes problems of background interference. The main drawbacks of the por-
table wind tunnel method are: (a) that wind tunnel turbulence is used to
simulate atmospheric turbulence; and (b) that subsequent development of emis-
sion factors requires independently determined patterns of wind flow around
typical storage pile shapes. With regard to the first drawback, Gillette7
(after whose work the MRI wind tunnel was designed) pointed out that the
scale of vertical motions of the natural atmosphere and the wind tunnel are
similar near the critical interface between the wind and the erodible surface,
making the wind tunnel a useful device for the study of wind erosion. More-
over, relative to the second drawback, physical modeling studies (e.g., Soo
et al.8) are underway to define storage pile wind flow patterns.
17
-------
3.0 SOURCE TESTING BY EXPOSURE PROFILING
This section describes the field testing program using the exposure
profiling method to determine control efficiencies for open dust sources.
The following field tests were performed at two integrated iron and steel
plants - Armco's Middletown Works (designated as Plant F) and Armco's
Houston Works (designated as Plant B):
Eleven tests of vehicular traffic on uncontrolled paved roads.
Twelve tests of vehicular traffic on controlled paved roads.
Four tests of light-duty vehicular traffic on uncontrolled un-
paved roads.
Five tests of light-duty vehicular traffic on controlled unpaved
roads.
Three tests of heavy-duty vehicular traffic on uncontrolled un-
paved roads.
Seven tests of heavy-duty vehicular traffic on controlled unpaved
roads.
Maps of plants F and B are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, respectively,
and indicate the sites of the exposure profiling tests conducted.
3.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The sampling and analysis procedures followed in this field testing
program were subject to certain quality control (QC) guidelines. These
guidelines will be discussed in conjunction with the activities to which
they apply. These procedures met or exceeded the requirements specified in
the reports entitled "Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measure-
ment Systems, Volume II - Ambient Air Specific Methods" (EPA 600/4-77-027a)
and "Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for Prevention of Significant Deteriora-
tion" (EPA 450/2-78-019).
As part of the QC program for this study, routine audits of sampling
and analysis procedures were performed. The purpose of the audits was to
demonstrate that measurements were made within acceptable control conditions
for particulate source sampling and to assess the source testing data for pre-
cision and accuracy. Examples of items audited include gravimetric analysis,
19
-------
!L
Legend:
— • J Jbw Piivcd Kouds
Paved i
-------
ro
Mold and
Storage
Building
0 100 200 fee I
Figure 3-2. Map of plant B showing test sites.
-------
flow rate calibration, data processing, and emission factor and control ef-
ficiency calculation. The mandatory use of specially designed reporting
forms for sampling and analysis data obtained in the field and laboratory
aided in the auditing procedure. Further detail on specific sampling and
analysis procedures are provided in the following sections.
3.2 AIR SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT
The exposure profiling technique utilized in this study is based on
the isokinetic profiling concept that is used in conventional source test-
ing. The passage of airborne pollutant immediately downwind of the source
is measured directly by means of simultaneous multipoint sampling over the
effective cross section of the open dust source plume. This technique uses
a mass-balance calculation scheme similar to EPA Method 5 stack testing
rather than requiring indirect calculation through the application of a gen-
eralized atmospheric dispersion model.
For measurement of nonbuoyant open dust source emissions, profiling
sampling heads are distributed over a vertical network positioned just down-
wind (usually about 5 m) from the source. A vertical line grid of samplers
is sufficient for measurement of emissions from line or moving point sources
while a two-dimensional array of samplers is required for quantification of
area source emissions.
The MRI exposure profiler, developed under EPA Contract No. 68-02-0619
as. reported in Reference 4, was used in this study. The profiler (Figure 3-3)
consists of a portable tower (4 to 6 m height) supporting an array of sampling
heads. During testing, each sampling head was operated as an isokinetic
exposure sampler directing passage of the flow stream through a settling
chamber and then upward through a standard 20.3 cm by 25.4 cm (8 in. by 10 in.)
glass fiber filter positioned horizontally. Sampling intakes were pointed
into the wind, and sampling velocity of each intake was adjusted to match
the local mean wind speed, as determined by 15 min averages prior to and
during the test. Throughout each test, wind speed was monitored by record-
ing anemometers at two heights, and the vertical wind speed profile was de-
termined by assuming a logarithmic distribution.
High volume parallel slot cascade impactors with 34 m3/hr (20 cfm) flow
controllers were used to measure particle size distribution at two heights
along side of the exposure profiler. The impactor units were equipped with
a cyclone preseparator to remove coarse particles which otherwise would tend
to bounce off the glass fiber impaction substrates, causing fine particle
measurement bias. To further reduce particle bounce problems, each stage
of the impactor substrates was sprayed with a stopcock grease solution.
The stages then had a sticky surface which inhibited particle bounce.
Two other types of equipment were used during this study: (1) the
standard high volume (hi-vol) air sampler and (2) the recently developed
EPA version of the size selective inlet (SSI) mounted on an otherwise stand-
ard high volume air sampler. .The standard high-volume sampler measures
total suspended particulate matter (TSP) which consists of particles smaller
than approximately 30 Mm in aerodynamic diameter. When fitted with an SSI,
22
-------
Figure 3-3. MRI exposure profiler.
23
-------
the high-volume air sampler measures inhalable particulate (IP) concentra-
tions consisting of particles smaller than 15 urn in aerodynamic diameter.
Three equipment deployment schemes shown in Figures 3-4 through 3-6
were employed during the course of this study. The basic downwind equipment
included an exposure profiling system with either four or five sampling
heads spaced 1 m (3.28 ft) apart and high-volume cascade impactors fitted
with cyclone preseparators at 1 m (3.28 ft) and 3 m (9.84 ft) heights. In
addition, a standard high-volume air sampler was operated at a height of
2 m (6.56 ft). The upwind air sampling equipment consisted of a standard
high-volume air sampler at a height of 2 m (6.56 ft) and either one or two
hi-vols fitted with SSIs, operated at 2 m (6.56 ft) or 1 m (3.28 ft) and
3 m (9.84 ft), respectively.
3.3 PARTICULATE SAMPLE HANDLING AND ANALYSIS
3.3.1 Preparation of Sample Collection Media
Particulate samples were collected on Type A slotted glass fiber im-
pactor substrates and on Type AE glass fiber filters. To minimize the prob-
lem of particle bounce, all glass fiber cascade impactor substrates were
greased. The grease solution was prepared by dissolving 140 g of stopcock
grease in 1 liter of reagent grade toluene. No grease was applied to the
borders and backs of the substrates. The substrates were handled, trans-
ported and stored in specially designed frames which protected the greased
surfaces.
Prior to the initial weighing, the greased substrates and filters were
equilibrated for 24 hr at constant temperature and humidity in a special
weighing room. During weighing, the balance was checked at frequent inter-
vals with standard weights to assure accuracy. The substrates and filters
remained in the same controlled environment for another 24 hr, after which
a second analyst reweighed them as a precision check. If a substrate or
filter could not pass audit limits, the entire lot was reweighed. Ten per-
cent of the substrates and filters taken to the field were used as blanks.
The quality assurance guidelines pertaining to preparation of sample col-
lection media are presented in Table 3-1.
3.3.2 Pre-Test Procedures/Evaluation of Sampling Conditions
Prior to equipment deployment, a number of decisions were made as to
the potential for acceptable source testing conditions. These decisions
were based on forecast information obtained from the local U.S. Weather Ser-
vice office. A specific sampling location was identified based on the pre-
dicted wind direction. Sampling was not planned if there was a high proba-
bility of measurable precipitation.
24
-------
ro
A Standard HiVol
O HiVol with SSI
O HiVol with Cyclone/lmpactor
Q- Profiler Head
Figure 3-4. Equipment deployment for Runs F-27
through F-35.
-------
ro
en
A Standard HiVol
O HiVol with SSI
O HiVol with Cyclone/lmpactor
Q- Profiler Head
Figure 3-5. Equipment deployment for JJuns F-36 through
F-45 and F-58 through F-74.
-------
ro
A Standard H\Vo\
O HWol with SSI
O HiVol with Cyclone/lmpacror
Q- Profiler Head
Figure 3-6. Equipment deployment for Runs B-50
through B-60.
-------
TABLE 3-1. QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING MEDIA
Activity
QC Check/Requirement
Preparation
Conditioning
Weighing
Auditing of weights
Correction for handling
effects
Calibration of balance
Inspect and imprint glass fiber media with
identification numbers.
Equilibrate media for 24 hr in clean con-
trolled room with relative humidity of less
than 50% (variation of less than ± 5%) and
with temperature between 20 C and 25 C
(variation of less than ± 3%).
Weigh hi-vol filters and impactor substrates
to nearest 0.1 mg.
Independently verify final weights of 10% of
hi-vol filters and impactor substrates (at least
four from each batch). Reweigh batch if
weights of any hi-vol filters or impactor
substrates deviate by more than ± 2.0 mg and
± 1.0 mg, respectively. For tare weights,
follow the above procedures in a 100% audit.
Reweigh batch if tare weight of any hi-vol
filters or impactor substrates deviate by
more than ±1.0 mg, and ±0.5 mg, respec-
tively.
Weigh and handle at least one blank for each
1 to 10 hi-vol filters or impactor substrates
of each type for each test.
Balance to be calibrated once per year by
certified manufacturer's representative.
Check prior to each use with laboratory
Class S weights.
28
-------
If conditions were considered acceptable, the sampling equipment was
transported to the site, and deployment was initiated. The deployment pro-
cedure normally took 1 to 2 hr to complete. During this time, the sampling
flow rates were set for the various air sampling instruments. The quality
control guidelines governing this activity are found in Table 3-2.
TABLE 3-2. QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING FLOW RATES
Activity
QC Check/Requirement
Calibration
• Profilers, hi-vols, and
impactors
Single-point checks
• Profilers, hi-vols, and
impactors
Alternative
Orifice calibration
Calibrate flows in operating ranges using
calibration orifice upon arrival and every
2 weeks thereafter at each regional site
prior to testing.
Check 25% of units with rotameter, calibra-
tion orifice, or electronic calibrator once
at each site prior to testing (different
units each time). If any flows deviate by
more than 7%, check all other units of
same type and recalibrate noncomplying
units. (See alternative below.)
If flows cannot be checked at test site,
check all units every 2 weeks and recali-
brate units which deviate by more than 7%.
Calibrate against displaced volume test
meter annually.
Once the source testing equipment was set up and the filters inserted,
air sampling commenced. Information was recorded on specially designed re-
porting forms for quality assurance and included:
a. Exposure profiler - Start/stop times, wind speed profiles
and sampler flow rates (15 min average), and wind direc-
tion relative to the roadway perpendicular (15 min average).
b. Other samplers - Start/stop times and flow rates.
c. Traffic count by vehicle type and speed.
d. General meteorology - Wind speed, wind direction, and
temperature.
29
-------
From the information in (a), adjustments could be made to insure iso-
kinetic sampling of both profiler heads (by changing the intake velocity)
and cyclone preseparators (by changing intake nozzles). Table 3-3 outlines
the pertinent QC procedures.
TABLE 3-3. QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Activity
QC Check/Requirements
Maintenance
• All samplers
Operation
• Timing
Isokinetic sampling
(profilers only)
Prevention of static
mode deposition
Check motors, gaskets, timers, and flow
measuring devices at each regional site
prior to testing.
Start and stop all samplers during time
spans not exceeding 1 min.
Adjust sampling intake orientation when-
ever mean (15 min average) wind direction
changes by more than 30°.
Adjust intake velocity whenever mean
(15 min average) wind speed approaching
sampler changes by more than 20%.
Cap sampler inlets prior to and immedi-
ately after sampling.
Sampling time was long enough to provide sufficient particulate mass
and to average over several units of cyclic fluctuation in the emission rate
(e.g., vehicle passes on an unpaved road). Sampling lasted from 13 min to
over 5 hr depending on the source and control measure (if any). Occasionally,
sampling was interrupted due to occurrence of unacceptable meteorological
conditions and then restarted when suitable conditions returned. Table 3-4
presents the criteria used for suspending or terminating a source test.
3.3.3 Sample Handling and Analysis
To prevent particulate losses, the exposed media were carefully trans-
ferred at the end of each run to protective containers within the MRI in-
strument van. In the field laboratory, exposed filters were placed in indi-
vidual glassine envelopes and numbered file folders. Impactor substrates
were replaced in the protective frames. Particulate that collected on the
interior surfaces of exposure probes and cyclone preseparators was rinsed
with distilled water into separate sample jars which were then capped and
taped shut.
30
-------
TABLE 3-4. CRITERIA FOR SUSPENDING OR TERMINATING AN EXPOSURE
PROFILING TEST
A test may be suspended or terminated if:a
1. Rainfall ensues during equipment setup or when sampling is in progress.
2. Mean wind speed during sampling moves outside the 1.8 to 8.9 m/s (4 to
20 mph) acceptable range for more than 20% of the sampling time.
3. The angle between mean wind direction and the perpendicular to the path
of the moving point source during sampling exceeds 45° for more than
20% of the sampling time.
4. Mean wind direction during sampling shifts by more than 30° from pro-
filer intake direction.
5. Mean wind speed approaching profiler sampling intake is less than 80%
or greater than 120% of intake speed.
6. Daylight is insufficient for safe equipment operation.
7. Source condition deviates from predetermined criteria (e.g., occurrence
of truck spill).
"Mean" denotes a 15-min average.
When exposed substrates and filters (and the associated blanks) were
returned to the MRI laboratory, they were equilibrated under the same con-
ditions as the initial weighing. After reweighing, 10% were audited to
check weighing accuracy.
To determine the sample weight of particulate collected on the interior
surfaces of samplers, the entire wash solution was passed through a 47 mm
Buchner type funnel holding a glass fiber filter under suction. This water
was passed through the Buchner funnel ensuring collection of all suspended
material on the 47 mm filter which was then dried in an oven at 100°C for
24 hr. After drying, the filters were conditioned at constant temperature
and humidity for 24 hr.
All wash filters were weighed with a 100% audit of tared and a 10%
audit of exposed filters. Blank values were determined by washing "clean"
(unexposed) settling chambers in the field and following the above proced-
ures.
31
-------
3.3.4- Emission Factor Calculation Procedures
To calculate emission rates using the exposure profiling technique, a
conservation of mass approach was used. The passage of airborne particulate,
i.e., the quantity of emissions per unit of source activity, is obtained by
spatial integration of distributed measurements of exposure (mass/area) over
the effective cross section of the plume. Exposure is the point value of
the flux (mass/area-time) of airborne particulate integrated over the time
of measurement. The steps in the calculation procedure are described below.
Finally, the following definitions for particulate matter will be used in
this report:
TP Total airborne particulate matter.
i
TSP Total suspended particulate matter, as measured by a
standard high-volume (hi-vol) sampler.
IP Inhalable particulate matter consisting of particles
smaller than 15 urn in aerodynamic diameter.
FP Fine particulate matter consisting of particles
smaller than 2.5 (jm in aerodynamic diameter.
3.3.4.1 Particulate Concentrations—
The concentration of particulate matter measured by a sampler is given
by:
C = 103 ^
where: C = particulate concentration (ug/m3)
m = particulate sample weight (mg)
Q = sampler flow rate (mVmin)
t = duration of sampling (min)
The specific particulate matter concentrations were determined from
the various particulate catches as follows:
Size range Particulate catches
TP Profiler filter and intake catches or
cyclone, impactor substrate, and backup
filter catches
TSP Hi-Vol filter catch
IP SSI filter catch
FP Impactor substrate and backup filter
catches
32
-------
To be consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for TSP,
all concentrations and flow rates were expressed in standard conditions
(25°C and 101 kPa or 77°F and 29.92 in Hg).
3.3.4.2 Isokinetic Flow Ratio--
The isokinetic flow ratio (IFR) is the ratio of a directional sampler's in-
ake air speed to the mean wind speed approaching the sampler. It is given by:
where: Q = sampler flow rate (mVmin)
a = intake area of sampler (m2)
U = mean wind speed at height of sampler (m/min)
This ratio is of interest in the sampling of TP, since isokinetic sampling
assures that particles of all sizes are sampled without bias. In this study,
profilers and cyclone preseparators were the directional samplers used.
If it was necessary to sample at a superisokinetic flow rate (IFR > 1.0),
to obtain sufficient sample under light wind conditions, the following mul-
tiplicative factors were used to correct measured exposures and concentra-
tions to corresponding isokinetic values:
Small particles Large particles
(d < 5 pm) (d > 50 urn)
Exposure Multiplier 1/IFR 1
Concentration Multiplier I IFR
A separate IFR is calculated for each profiler head based on the measured
values of Q and U.
These correction factors for nonisokinetic TP concentrations are based
on a theoretical relationship developed by Davies.9 The relationship as
applied to exposure profiling in the ambient atmosphere is as follows:
l - _i_ (1/IFR) -1
~
__
Ct~ IFR 4Y + 1
where
Cn = Nonisokinetic concentration of particles of diameter d
Ct = True concentration of particles of diameter d
Y = Inertia! impaction parameter = d2 c (p - p) U/18u D
D = Diameter of probe
d = Diameter of particle
p = Density of air
u = Viscosity of air
p = Density of particle
c = Cunningham correction factor
33
-------
From Davies1 equation, it is clear that, for very small d, C = C., and that,
for large values of d, C = Ct/IFR. These observations lead to tne simpli-
fied correction factors presented in the above table.
A more rigorous value for the average ratio (R) of nonisokinetic to
true concentration can be found by integrating the product of the particle
size distribution and Davies1 relationship over all possible particle dia-
meters. An isokinetically corrected concentration can then be calculated
as
Ct = Cn/"R
Using a log-normal distribution of particle diameters, the isokinetically
corrected concentrations obtained by the R-method and by MRI's simplified
multiplicative correction factor method are within 20% of one another for
IFR values between 0.2 and 1.5. Only 8% of the IFR values reported in this
study lie outside of this range.
Using the simplified MRI approach for a particle-size distribution con-
taining a mixture of small, intermediate, and large particles, the isokinetic
correction factor is an average of the above factors weighted by the relative
proportion of large and small particles. For example, if the mass of small
particles in the distribution equals twice the mass of the large particles,
the weighted isokinetic correction for exposure would be:
(1 + 2/IFR)/3
Because the particle-size distribution and the isokinetic corrections are
interrelated, isckinetic corrections are of an iterative nature. In the
present study, two iterations were employed.
3.3.4.3 Downwind Particle-Size Distributions--
Particle-size distributions were determined from a cascade impactor
using the proper 50% cutoff diameters for the cyclone precollector and each
impaction stage. These data were fitted to a log-normal mass size distribu-
tion after correction for particle bounce. The distributions obtained at
two heights in the source plume were then used to determine the mass frac-
tions corresponding to various particle-size ranges as a function of height.
The IP and FP mass fractions were assumed to vary linearly with height.
The technique used in this study to correct for the effects of particle
bounce has been discussed in earlier MRI studies.1'2 Simultaneous cascade
impactor measurements of airborne particle-size distribution with and with-
out a cyclone precollector indicate that the cyclone precollector is some-
what effective in reducing fine particle measurement bias. However, even
with the cyclone precollector, a monotonic decrease in collected particle
weight on each successive impaction stage is frequently followed by a sev-
eral-fold increase in weight collected on the back-up filter. But, because
the assumed value (0.2 urn) for the effective cutoff diameter of the glass
fiber back-up filter fits the progression of cutoff diameters for the impac-
tion stages, the weight collected on the back-up filter should be consistent
with the decreasing pattern shown by the weight collected on the impactor
34
-------
stages. The excess participate on the back-up filter is postulated to con-
sist of coarse particles that penetrated the cyclone (with small probability)
and bounced through the impactor. Although particle bounce is further reduced
by greasing impaction substrates, it is not completely eliminated.
To correct the measured particle size distribution for the effects of
residual particle bounce, the following procedure was used:
1. The calibrated cutoff diameter for the cyclone preseparator is
used to fix the upper end of the particle-size distribution.
2. The lower end of the particle size distribution is fixed by the
cutoff diameter of the last stage and the corrected mass fraction associated
with this stage. The corrected fraction collected on the back-up filter is
calculated as the average of the fractions measured on the two preceding
stages.
Using the above procedure, mass is effectively removed from the back-up
filter. However, because no clear procedure existed for apportioning the
excess mass back onto the impaction stages, the size distribution determined
from tests with particle bounce problems was constructed using the log-normal
assumption and two points—the mass fraction collected in the cyclone and
the corrected mass fraction collected on the back-up filter.
3.3.4.4 Particulate Exposures and Profile Integration—
For directional samplers operated isokinetically, total particulate
exposures are calculated by:
E = 10" x CUt
where: E = total particulate exposure (mg/cm2)
C = net TP concentration ((jg/m3)
U = approaching wind speed (m/s)
t = duration of sampling (s)
The exposure values vary over the height of the plume. If exposure is
integrated over the height of the plume, then the quantity obtained repre-
sents the total passage of airborne particulate matter due to the source
per unit length of the line source. This quantity is called the integrated
exposure A and is found by:
H
A = J
0
E dh
wnere:
A = integrated exposure (m-mg/cm2)
E = particulate exposure (mg/cm2)
h = vertical distance coordinate (m)
H = effective extent of plume above ground
(m)
35
-------
The effective height of the plume is found by linear extrapolation of the
uppermost net TP concentrations to a value of zero.
Because exposures are measured at discrete heights of the plume, a nu-
merical integration is necessary to 'determine A. The exposure must equal
zero at the vertical extremes of the profile, i.e., at the ground where the
wind velocity equals zero and at the effective height of the plume where
the net concentration equals zero. However, the maximum TP exposure usually
occurs below a height of 1 m, so that there is a sharp decay in TP exposure
near the ground. To account for this sharp decay, the value of exposure at
the ground level is set equal to the value at a height of 1 m. The integra-
tion is then performed using Simpson's rule.
3.3.4.5 Particulate Emission Rates--
The emission rate for total airborne particulate generated by vehicular
traffic on a straight road segment expressed in grams of emissions per ve-
hicle-kilometer-traveled (VKT) is given by:
. - in* {}
where: e = total particulate emission rate (g/VKT)
A = integrated exposure (m-mg/cm2)
N = number of vehicle passes (dimensionless)
3.3.4.6 Other Emission Factors--
Parti cul ate emission factors for other size ranges are found in a man-
ner analogous to that described above for TP. The concentrations correspond-
ing to these size ranges are determined using the particle size distributions
described earlier. A linear fit of the mass fractions measured at 1 m and
3 m is used to determine mass fractions at the other heights of the profile.
Once net concentrations are determined, exposure values and emission factors
are obtained in a manner identical to that for TP.
3.3.5 Control Efficiency Calculation Procedure
Because of meteorological conditions and logistical constraints, it
was not always possible to run both controlled and uncontrolled tests at
the same site in a plant. Furthermore, it was often necessary to determine
normalized values in order to obtain meaningful comparisons even between
tests at the same site. This was true simply because the vehicle mix on
test roads varied from day to day. Therefore, the measured emission factor
values had to be normalized in order that a change in vehicle mix was not
mistakenly interpreted as a control efficiency for the technique being
tested.
Thus, determination of the efficiency of a control measure required
that the measured emission factors (from both controlled and uncontrolled
tests) be scaled using mean vehicle characteristics at the very least. It
36
-------
is important to realize that other variables which affect emission factors
(such as silt content and surface loadings) are themselves affected by the
control measures applied, while vehicle mix is not. Therefore no normaliza-
tion for silt and surface loading was necessary when controlled and uncon-
trolled tests were conducted at the same site.-
The methods used in this study to normalize measured emission factors
are based on MRI's experimentally determined predictive emission factor equa-
tions for uncontrolled open dust sources. The equations for paved and un-
paved roads are presented in Table 1-1. As can be seen from this table,
the emission factors may be scaled by:
for paved roads and
en = e.rnYSn\f"n
n l{r7 ST WT
^si/\"l/ vi
for unpaved roads where
e_ = normalized value of the emission factor corresponding
to run i
e. = measured emission factor from run i
s = normalizing value for silt content
s. = silt content measured for run i
S = normalizing value for average vehicle speed
S- = average vehicle speed during run i
Ln = normalizing value for surface loading
L.J = surface loading measured for run i
Wn = normalizing value for average vehicle weight
W^ = average vehicle weight during run i
w = normalizing value for average number of wheels per
vehicle pass
w- = average number of wheels per vehicle pass during run i
37
-------
The control efficiency in percent (C) is found as
c = i - -£ x 100%
5u
where e = geometric mean of normalized emission factors for
controlled roads
e = geometric mean of normalized emission factors for
uncontrolled roads
The normalization procedure varied depending on whether both uncontrolled
and controlled tests at the same site were available. If replicates of both
controlled and uncontrolled tests were available at one site, the normaliza-
tion process for controlled and uncontrolled emission rates involved only
the traffic parameters (average vehicle weight, average vehicle speed, av-
erage number of wheels per vehicle). If more than one controlled or uncon-
trolled test site had to be used, uncontrolled emission factors were norma-
lized using the average values of both road surface and traffic parameters
from all uncontrolled tests at the plant. The controlled emissions were
also scaled to the mean traffic parameters for all uncontrolled tests at
the plant. Because control measures affect the road surface characteristics,
the above equations imply a emission reduction based on the average uncon-
trolled surface parameters at the plant.
3.4 AGGREGATE MATERIAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Samples of the road surface and storage pile aggregate materials were
taken in the course of this study. These were analyzed for silt (those par-
ticles passing a 200 mesh screen) and moisture contents and to determine
road surface loading values. These parameters are of importance in deter-
mining normalized emission rates as described earlier. Detailed steps for
collection and analysis of samples for silt and moisture are given in a pre-
vious report.4 An abbreviated discussion is presented below.
Paved roadway surface dust samples were removed from the travelled portion
of the road by vacumming, preceded by broom sweeping if a heavy loading of
aggregate was present. The samples were collected from the travelled portion
of the road which was determined by observing the traffic and the road itself,
noting that the portions of a roadway that were not travelled (e.g., curbs
and center strips) usually exhibited a heavy loading of dust. The vacuum
bags were equilibrated to the same constant temperature and humidity condi-
tions as the air sampling filters before both tare and final weighings.
Unpaved roadway dust samples were collected by sweeping the loose layer
of soil or crushed rock from the hardpan road base with a broom and dust pan.
Sweeping was performed so that the road base was not abraided by the broom,
and so that only the naturally occurring loose dust was collected. The sweep-
ing was performed slowly so that dust was not entrained into the atmosphere.
38
-------
Once the field sample was obtained, it was prepared for analysis. The
field sample was split with a riffle to a sample size amenable to laboratory
analysis. Laboratory analysis procedures to determine silt and moisture
contents were then identical for all samples regardless of origin.
The basic procedure for moisture analysis is determination of weight
loss on oven drying. Table 3-5 presents a step-by-step procedure for de-
termining moisture content. Exceptions to this general procedure were made
for any material composed of hydrated minerals or organic materials. Be-
cause of the danger of measuring chemically bound moisture for these mate-
rials if they are over-dried, the drying time was lowered to only 1-1/2 hr.
Coal and soil are examples of materials that were analyzed by this latter
procedure. Moisture analysis was performed in the field laboratory, normally
on the same day as sample collection. In this fashion, the measured value
was a more reliable estimate of the field conditions at the time of the test.
TABLE 3-5. MOISTURE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
1. Preheat the oven to approximately 110°C (230°F). Record oven temperature.
2. Tare the laboratory sample containers which will be placed in the oven.
Tare the containers with the lids on if they have lids. Record the tare
weight(s). Check zero before weighing.
3. Record the make, capacity, smallest division, and accuracy of the scale.
4. weigh the laboratory sample in the container(s). Record the combined
weight(s). Check zero before weighing.
5. Place sample in oven and dry overnight.3
6. Remove sample container from oven and (a) weigh immediately if uncovered,
being careful of the hot container; or (b) place tight-fitting lid on
the container and let cool before weighing. Record the combined sam-
ple and container weight(s). Check zero before weighing.
7. Calculate the moisture as the initial weight of the sample and container
minus the oven-dried weight of the sample and container divided by the
initial weight of the sample alone. Record the value.
8. Calculate the sample weight to be used in the silt analysis as the oven-dried
weight of the sample and container minus the weight of the container.
Record the value.
Dry materials composed of hydrated minerals or organic materials like coal
and certain soils for only 1-1/2 hr. Because of this short drying time,
material dried for only 1-1/2 hr must not be more than 2.5 cm (1 in.)
deep in the container.
39
-------
The basic procedure for silt analysis was mechanical, dry sieving. A
step-by-step procedure is given in Table 3-6. The silt analysis was per-
formed upon return to the main MRI laboratories.
3.5 RESULTS FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
Nineteen tests of controlled and uncontrolled emissions from ve-
hicular traffic on unpaved roads were performed. Table 3-7 presents the
site parameters of the exposure profiling tests conducted on both unpaved
and paved roads. Site parameters for paved roads will be discussed in
Section 3.6. Ten tests were of heavy-duty traffic on both controlled and
uncontrolled unpaved roads. Nine tests were of light-duty vehicular traf-
fic on both controlled and uncontrolled unpaved roads. These sets of tests
will be discussed separately. It should be noted that the test sites listed
in Table 3-7 can be found in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.
3.5.1 Heavy-Outy Traffic
Three uncontrolled tests of fugitive dust emissions from heavy-duty
vehicular traffic on unpaved roads were performed. Two control measures
for unpaved roads were evaluated—(1) a 17% solution of Coherexi in water
applied at an intensity of 0.86 2/m2 (0.19 gal/yd2) and (2) water applied
at an intensity of 0.59 £/m2 (0.13 gal/yd2). These control measures were
applied by plant personnel.
Table 3-8 lists, for each run, the individual point values of iso-
kinetically corrected exposure (net mass per sampling intake area) within
the open dust source plume as measured by the exposure profiling equipment.
These point values were integrated over the height of the plume to determine
emission factors.
Table 3-9 compares particulate concentrations measured by the upwind
hi-vol and by three types of downwind samplers (exposure profiling head,
standard hi-vol, and high-volume cascade impactor) located 5 m from the test
road and near the vertical center of the plume at a height of 2 m above
ground. For the profiler concentrations, both nonisokinetic and isokinetic
values are given.
Table 3-10 summarizes the particle sizing data for the tests of heavy-
duty traffic on unpaved roads. Particle size is expressed in terms of aero-
dynamic diameter.
Table 3-11 gives the wind speed and intake velocity used to calculate
the isokinetic ratios for each run. These values in conjunction with the
previous table, were used to determine isokinetically corrected concentra-
tions and exposures according to the procedure described in Section 3.3.4.2.
Table 3-12 presents the isokinetic emission factors for total, inhal-
able and fine particulate. Also indicated in this table are vehicle and
site parameters which have been found to have a significant effect on the
emission rates from uncontrolled unpaved roads.
40
-------
TABLE 3-6. SILT ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
1. Select the appropriate 8-in. diameter, 2-in. deep sieve sizes. Recom-
mended U.S. Standard Series sizes are: 3/8-in., No. 4, No. 20, No. 40,
No. 100, No. 140, No. 200, and a pan. Comparable Tyler Series sizes
can also be utilized. The No. 20 and the No. 200 are mandatory. The
others can be varied if the recommended sieves are not available or if
buildup on one particular sieve during sieving indicates that an inter-
mediate sieve should be inserted.
2. Obtain a mechanical sieving device such as a vibratory shaker or a Roto-
Tap (without the tapping function).
3. Clean the sieves with compressed air and/or a soft brush. Material
lodged in the sieve openings or adhering to the sides of the sieve
should be removed (if possible) without handling the screen roughly.
4. Attain a scale (capacity of at least 1,600 g) and record make, capacity,
smallest division, date of last calibration, and accuracy.
5. Tare sieves and pan. Check the zero before every weighing. Record
weights.
6. After nesting the sieves in decreasing order with pan at the bottom,
dump dried laboratory sample (probably immediately after moisture
analysis) into the top sieve. The sample should weigh between 800
and 1600 g (1.8 and 3.5 Ib). Brush fine material adhering to the
sides of the container into the top sieve and cover the top sieve
with a special lid normally purchased with the pan.
7. Place nested sieves into the mechanical device and sieve for 10 min.
Remove pan containing minus No. 200 and weigh. Replace pan beneath
the sieves and sieve for another 10 min. Remove pan and weigh. When
the difference between two successive pan sample weighings (where the
tare of the pan has been subtracted) is less than 3.0%, the sieving
is complete. Do not sieve longer than 40 min.
8. Weigh each sieve and its contents and record the weight. Check the zero
before every weighing.
9. Collect the laboratory sample and place the sample in a separate con-
tainer if further analysis is expected.
10. Calculate the percent of mass less than the 200 mesh screen (75 urn).
This is the silt content.
This amount will vary for finer textured materials; 100 to 300 grams may
be sufficient when 90 percent of the sample passes a No. 8 (2.36 mm) sieve.
41
-------
TABLE 3-7. EXPOSURE PROFILING TEST SITE PARAMETERS
ro
Site
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
Source
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Light- duty unpaved road
Light-duty unpaved road
Light-duty unpaved road
Light- duty unpaved road
.light- duty unpaved road
Light-duty unpaved road
Light-duty unpaved road
Light-duty unpaved road
Light-duty unpaved road
Heavy-duty unpaved road
Heavy-duty unpaved road
Heavy-duty unpaved road
Heavy-duty unpaved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Heavy-duty unpaved road
Heavy-duty unpaved road
Heavy-duty unpaved road
Heavy-duty unpaved road
Heavy-duty unpaved road
Heavy-duty unpaved road
Paved road
Paved road
Control3
measure
N
N
VS
VS
VS
VS
N
N
N
N
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
N
N
WF
W
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
Run
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
F-38
F-39
F-28
F-29
F-30
F-31
F-40
F-41
F-42
F-43
F-44
F-59
F-60
F-63
F-64
F-61
F-62
F-74
F-65
F-66
F-67
F-68
F-69
F-70
F-27
F-45
Dale
07/17/80
07/17/80
10/14/80
10/15/80
10/16/80
10/16/80
07/12/80
07/13/80
07/13/80
07/13/80
10/18/80
10/18/80
10/19/80
10/19/80
10/19/80
11/03/80
11/03/80
11/05/80
11/05/80
11/04/80
11/04/80
11/21/80
11/06/80
11/06/80
11/06/80
11/06/80
11/06/80
11/06/80
07/08/80
10/20/80
Test
start
10:20
11:46
11:00
9:24
9:49
12:10
10:55
10:12
11:17
13:17
14:38
17:22
10:39
14:36
17:09
11:45
14:32
10:05
13:18
11:56
13:58
9:58
9:18
10:33
13:36
14:30
15:30
16:26
14:19
12:06
Sampling
duration
(min)
62
127
335
241
127
215
45
34
17
40
133
100
128
120
55
125
123
107
121
108
77
205
57
20
17
17
13
13
91
135
No. of
vehicle
passes
79
130
263
199
141
190
101
50
50
33
300
255
294
300
200
61
84
118
136
93
94
67
64
41
30
21
14
10
158
172
Ambient air
temperature
pnr"
32
32
10
10
10
10
26
26
26
27
10
10
10
10
10
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
4.4
7.2
9.9
16
16
13
9.9
9.9
9.9
38
10
~T5FT
90
90
50
50
50
50
78
79
79
80
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
40
45
50
60
60
55
50
50
50
100
50
Mean .
wind speed
Ii7iy~
1.9
3.4
2.6
2.1
2.0
2.9
0.72
2.8
2.8
1.6
1.8
2.3
3.1
3.8
4.1
4.2
3.7
2.3
2.9
4.9
5.4
4.0
2.9
2.5
4.2
3.3
3.5
3.7
4.2
1.8
liSjTi.
4.2
7 5
5.9
4.8
4.5
6.4
1.6
6.2
6.2
3.5
4.0
5.1
7.0
8.5
9.1
9.2
8.2
5.2
6.5
11
12
9.0
6.4
5.5
9.5
7.4
7.9
8.2
9.5
4.0
-------
TABLE 3-7. (concluded)
Site
J
K
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
Source
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Paved road
Control3
measure
N
FBS
FBS
FBS
WF
WF
WF
N
FBS
N
N
N
Run
F-41
B-52
B-50
B-51
B-54
B-55
B-56
B-58
B-53
B-57
B-59
B-60
Dale
07/15/80
06/25/81
06/24/81
06/24/81
06/29/81
06/29/80
06/30/81
07/09/81
06/26/81
07/01/81
07/10/81
07/10/81
Test
start
11:10
10:22
10: 12
12:15
10:35
13:29
10: 35
15:51
12:45
13:09
11:55
14:05
Sampling
duration
(min)
259
60
104
93
101
82
61
96
81
101
114
112
No. of
vehicle
passes
301
119
123
127
118
98
118
67
72
68
67
50
Ambient air
temperature
("C)
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
m
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Mean .
wind speed
TinTsT
2.6r
1 3
2.5=
1.9=
? 4
3.8=
2.8C
3.0=
2.4=
1 6
2'7c
2.2C
(mph)
5.8r
3.0=
4 2°
5-4r
8.6=
6.6=
5.3=
3.6=
6.1=
5.0C
CO
The control measures are: N = uncontrolled
VS = vacuum sweeping
C = Coherex
WF = water flushing
W = watering
FBS = water flushing and broom sweeping
Arithmetic average of 1 in and 3 m values, unless otherwise noted.
Average of 2 m and 4 m values.
-------
TABLE 3-8. PLUME SAMPLING DATA FOR HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES ON UNPAVED ROADS
Control
Site measure Run
C Coherex F-59
C Coherex F-60
C Coherex F-63
C Coherex F-64
E Watering F-65
E Watering F-66
E Watering F-67
Sampling
height
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
V
1
2
3
4
5 -
Sampling
(m-Vhr)
24
37
42
49
52
37
49
50
54
70
14
20
24
27
31
21
32
33
38
41
15
25
26
32
35
15
26
26
31
32
20
24
27
31
34
rate
(cfm)
14
22
25
29
30
22
29
29
32
41
8
12
14
16
18
12
19
20
22
24
9
14
15
18
20
9
15
16
18
19
12
14
16
18
20
Net TP
exposure
(mg/cm2)
2.09
2.02
2.38
2.00
0.00
2.44
1.83
1.34
1.16
0.00
2.58
3.09
2.62
2.31
1.64
9.20
5.57
4.23
2.84
2.64
3.83
2.73
2.74
2.37
1.11
8.70
8.14
6.06
4.71
2.25
17.8
19.0
17.4
12.7
6.92
44
-------
TABLE 3-8 (concluded)
Sampling
Control height
Site measure Run (m)
E None F-68 1
2
3
4
5
E None F-69 1
2
3
4
5
E None F-70 1
2
3
4
5
Sampling
(nrVhr)
24
32
34
37
41
27
29
29
29
29
34
38
42
43
23
rate
(cfm)
14
19
20
22
24
16
17
17
17
17
20
23
25
25
14
Net TP
exposure
(mg/cm2)
12.0
15.3
14.6
12.7
9.6
10.7
10.5
10.8
6.82
4.44
8.60
7.52
6.00
5.76
3.63
Isokinetically corrected.
45
-------
TABLE 3-9. PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS FOR HEAVY-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
CTl
Particulate concentration (ug/m3) at
2 m above ground
Downwind
Site
C
C
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
Control
measure
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Watering
Watering
Watering
None
None
None
Run
F-59
F-60
F-63
F-64
F-65
F-66
F-67
F-68
F-69
F-70
Upwind
background
550
550
65
65
206
206
280
280
280
280
Profi
Nonisokinetic
768
620
2,280
2,320
3,240
25,000
65,000
43,500
42,700
22,800
ler
Isokinetic
719
706
2,160
2,620
• 2,840
25,900
43,200
43,500
36,900
25,600
Cascade
impactor
846
806
2,040
2,420
3,660
26,900
43,700
38,600
38,000
34,300
Standard
hi-vol
412
848
N/A
2,280
2,060
18,700
45,600
27,800
29,600
19,100
Interpolated from 1 m and 3 m concentrations.
-------
TABLE 3-10. AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE DATA - HEAVY-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
Mass median
Site
C
C
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
Control
measure
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Watering
Watering
Watering
None
None
None
Run
F-59
F-60
F-63
F-64
F-65
F-66
F-67
F-68
F-69
F-70
diameter
Ht=lm
57
65
60
70
> 100
> 100
42
55
> 100
77
(urn)
Ht=3m
57
6.7
39
54
> 100
> 100
74
> 100
80
53
% < 50
Ht=lm
46
45
47
44
24
31
53
48
28
41
jjm
Ht=3m
46
84
56
49
26
33
42
28
40
49
% <
Ht=lm
27
23
26
23
11
15
29
26
18
22
15 urn
Ht=3m
27
65
30
28
13
16
21
13
21
28
% <
Ht=lm
14
10
12
10
4
6
13
12
12
10
5 pro
Ht=3m
14
44
13
14
6
7
8
6
9
14
% <
Ht-lm
8
5
6
6
2
3
7
6
9
5
2.5 pm
Ht-3m
8
31
7
8
3
4
4
3
5
8
These values are based on a large log-normal extrapolation of measured data.
-------
TABLE 3-11. ISOKINETIC CORRECTION PARAMETERS FOR HEAVY-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
Site
C
C
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
Control
measure
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Watering
Watering
Watering
None
None
None
Run
F-59
F-60
F-63
F-64
F-65
F-66
F-67
F-68
F-69
F-70
Ht =
(cm/s)
338
306
199
248
212
216
394
268
291
353
Wind •
1m
(fpm)
665
603
392
489
417
426
776
528
572
695
speed
lit = 3m
TcraTIT
494
430
266
330
358
274
456
392
416
396
( fpm)
972
847
524
650
704
540
898
77?
818
779
Intake velocity
Ht =
(cm/s)
260
392
153
221
163
163
217
255
291
371
1m
(fpm)
512
772
302
435
321
320
427
502
572
730
Hnn
(cm/s)
454
529
256
360
275
282
292
365
307
491
IfpniT
894
1,040
503
709
542
556
575
718
605
966
Measured
isokinetic
Ht=lm
0.770
1.28
0.770
0.890
0.770
0,751
0.550
0.951
1.00
1.05
ratio
HFIiif
0.920
1.23
0.960
1.09
0.770
1.03
0.640
0.930
0.740
1.24
-------
TABLE 3-12. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC DATA AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY
TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
Site
C
C
C
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
'- ~- ---- ---- --
Control
measure
Coherex
Cohere*
Coherex
Coherex
Watering
Watering
Watering
Hone
None
None
== — -
Run
F-59
F-60
F-63
F-64
F-65
F-66
F-67
F-68
F-69
F-70
Silt
(%)
5.4a
5.4a
2.5
-
4.5
-
5.1
14
16b
Mean \
sl
(Mi)
26
35
29
24
32
40
40
32
32
32
vehicle
>eed
(mph)
16
22
18
15
20
25
25
20
20
20
"Rei
vehicle
(tonnes)
17
42
49.
49
48
49
49
20
48
48
n
weight
ftmisT
19
46
54
54
53
54
54
29
53
53
Mean No. of
wheels per
vehicle pass
9.3
9.2
7.7
7.8
10
9.0
9.8
5.9
10
10
•„ r- - -
TJgTVKTr
1.51
1.01
1.19
2.30
2.33
8.29
28.0
36.4
37.5
36.9
_ ._ .. -^ „
TP
(In/Mr)
5.34
3.35
4.41
8.17
8.27
29.4
99.3
129
133
133
Emisilor
1
(kg/VKf)
0.406
0.392
0.327
0.575
0.280
1.33
7.28
9.45
7.50
9.25
i faclors
IP
(Ib/VHT)
1.44
1.39
1.18
2.04
0.992
4.70
25.8
33.5
25.9
32.9
""-"- "
_. -n
TJgTvTTr
0.121
0.168
0.0773
0.150
0.0618
0.290
1.54
2.18
2.49
2.40
>
TWVM7}
0.428
0.594
0.274
0.531
0.219
1.03
5.46
7.74
8.84
8.52
Same sample.
Average of more than one sample.
-------
In order to determine control efficiencies, it was necessary to deter-
mine normalized TP, IP, and FP emission factors, as discussed in Section 3.3.J
The range, geometric mean and geometric standard deviation of the normalized
emission factors are given in Table 3-13. Following the procedure described
in Section 3.3.5, control efficiencies were found and are presented in
Table 3-14.
Watering of unpaved roads showed a noticeable decay in control effi-
ciency. In Figure 3-7, control efficiency is plotted as a function of time
after application. As seen in this figure, watering has a high initial con-
trol efficiency in all size ranges, but the effects are short-lived.
The result of the four tests of Coherex® are incorporated into one aver-
age control efficiency in this table. This is because no trend of efficiency
decay was noticed during these tests. Quite possibly, this is due to the
fact that precipitation (over 0.1 in.) fell between the first and second
test days. Nevertheless, tests F-63 and F-64 indicated evidence of control
efficiency decay as shown below:
Control efficiency (%)
Run TP IP FP
F-63
F-64
96.9
93.1
96.4%
92.6
96.9
92.9
Thus, there is reason to believe that a decay in control efficiency would
also have been observed under more favorable meteorological conditions.
3.5.2 Light-Duty Traffic
Five tests of fugitive emissions from captive, light-duty traffic on
controlled unpaved roads were performed. The control measure was a 17% solu-
tion of Coherex® in water applied at an intensity 0.86 £/m2 (0.19 gal/ yd2).
Four uncontrolled tests were performed at the same site in order to deter-
mine the efficiency of the control. The captive vehicles traveling on the
road were mid-sized rental cars driven by MRI personnel.
Table 3-15 lists, for each run, the individual point values of isoki-
netically corrected exposure (net mass per sampling intake area) within the
fugitive dust plume as measured by the exposure profiling equipment. These
point values were integrated over the height of the plume to determine emis-
sion factors.
Table 3-16 compares particulate concentrations measured by the upwind
hi-vol and by three types of downwind samplers (exposure profiling head,
standard hi-vol, and high-volume cascade impactor) located 5 m from the
test road and near the vertical center of the plume at a height of 2 m above
ground. For the profiler concentrations, both nonisokinetic and isokinetic
values are given.
50
-------
TABLE 3-13. NORMALIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
Normalized3 Emi
Control
Measure
None
Coherex
Watering
No. of
Tests
3
4
3
Range
33.6-78.4
0.886-3.58
2.09-20.0
TP
Geometric
mean
44.5
1.92
6.37
Geometric
standard
deviation
1.63
1.94
3.09
Range
6.54-20.4
0.367-0.968
0.250-5.19
ssion Factors (kg/VKT)
IP
Geometric
mean
10.3
0.564
1.09
Geometric
standard
deviation
1.82
1.64
4.57
Range
2.15-4.71
0.0866-0.288
0.0553-1.10
FP
Geometric
mean
2.83
0.167
0.236
Geometric
standard
deviation
1.56
1.66
4.47
Normalizing values are:
Silt content
Vehicle speed
Vehicle weight
Number of wheels
10.4%
32 kph (20 mph)
55 tonnes (50 tons)
9
-------
TABLE 3-14. CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR HEAVY-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
Control
Coherex®
Watering
Watering
Watering
Application intensity
0.86 £/m2 (0.19 gal/yd2)
of 17% solution
0.59 £/m2 (0.13 gal /yd2)
0.59 j>/m2 (0.13 gal/yd2)
0.59 A/in2 (0.13 gal /yd2)
Time
after
Application
(hr)
0-48b
0.48d
1.4d
4.4d
Time
after
Rainfall3
(days)
2-6°
3
3
3
Control efficiency (%)
TP
95.7
95.3
86.1
55.0
IP
94.5
97.6
90.4
49.6
FP
94.1
98.0
92.3
61.1
0.1 inch or more.
No trend of decay noticed over this time.
The first two tests were run 6 days after rainfall, and the second pair 2 days after rainfall.
At the midpoint of the test.
-------
en
CO
100
o
c
c
o
80
!H 60
40
o
0.59j?/m2 (0.13 gal/yd2)
Vehicle Passes
Per Hour
2 3
Time After Application (hours)
Mean
78
Standard
Deviation
25
Key:
- Q .
,...,« n TP
— a IP
A FP
i I 1
1 I
Figure 3-7. Decay in control efficiency of watering
on unpaved road under heavy-duty traffic.
-------
TABLE 3-15. PLUME SAMPLING DATA FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
Control
Site measure
B None
B None
B None
B None
B Coherex
B Coherex
B Coherex
B Coherex
Sampling
height
Run (m)
F-28 1
2
3
4
F-29 1
2
3
4
F-30 1
2
3
4
F-31 1
2
3
4
F-40 1
2
3
4
5
F-41 1
2
3
4
5
F-42 1
2
3
4
5
F-43 1
2
• 3
4
5
Sampling
(nrVhr)
12
12
15
15
14
19
24
25
12
12
17
17
12
12
17
17
22
23
24
25
25
16
23
25
28
30
17
27
31
36
40
29
39
45
54
60
rate
(cfm)
7
7
9
9
8
11
14
14
7
7
10
10
7
7
10
10
13
14
14
14
15
10
14
15
16
18
10
16
18
21
24
17
23
27
32
35
Net TP
exposure
(mg/cm2)
3.52
3.58
1.66
0.770
5.20
4.74
3.56
2.57
4.20
3.77
2.76
1.29
3.01
3.13
1.81
0.92
0.205
0.166
0.0595
0.0658
0.0263
1.73
0.929
0.480
0.310
0.222
3.69
2.06
1.10
0.632
0.507
4.63
2.22
0.71
0.11
0.00
54
-------
TABLE 3-15. (Concluded)
Control
Site measure Run
Sampling
height
(m)
Sampling
(m-Vhr)
rate
(cfm)
Net TP
exposure
(mg/cm2)
Coherex
F-44
1
2
3
4
5
25
38
44
50
53
15
22
25
29
31
3.24
0.83
0.84
0.17
0.00
ison neti cany corrected.
55
-------
TABLE 3-16. PARTICIPATE CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
en
en
Site
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Control
measure
None
None
None
None
Coherex
.Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Run
F-28
F-29
F-30
F-31
F-40
F-41
F-42
F-43
F-44
Par
Upwind
background
161
32
32
49
91
74
111
111
111
ticulate concentration (|jg/m3) at 2
m above ground
Downwi nd
Profiler
Nonisokinetic
20,100
10,700
26,400
9,500
204
662
1,020
831
735
Isokinetic
38,000
8,220
20,500
8,880
204
662
971
870
735
Cascade
impactor3
16,000
16,400
22,000
6,830
294
807
1,450
1,260
2,560
Standard
hi-vol
14,200
4,710
13,300
5,690
217
575
535
770
1,290
Interpolated from 1 m and 3 in concentrations
-------
Table 3-17 summarizes the particle sizing data for the tests of light-
duty traffic on unpaved roads. Particle size is expressed in terms of aero-
dynamic diameter.
Table 3-18 gives the wind speed and intake velocity used to calculate
the isokinetic ratios for each run. These values, in conjunction with the
previous table, were used to determine isokinetically corrected concentra-
tions and exposures.
Table 3-19 presents the isokinetic emission factors for total particu-
late, inhalable particulate, and fine particulate. Also indicated in this
table are vehicle and site parameters which have been found to have a signif-
icant effect on the emission rates from uncontrolled unpaved roads.
In order to determine control efficiencies, it was necessary to deter-
mine normalized TP, IP, and FP emission factors, as discussed earlier. The
range, geometric mean and geometric standard deviation of the normalized
emission factors are given in Table 3-20. Following the procedure described
earlier in this section, the control efficiency of Coherex® on light-duty
unpaved roads as a function of time was found and is presented in Table 3-21.
In contrast to the results for heavy-duty traffic on unpaved roads,
these tests show evidence of control efficiency decay for Coherex®, as shown
in Figure 3-8. The TP, IP and FP control efficiencies all tended toward
90% during the short time over which results were available. Finally,
Figure 3-9 plots the control efficiency of Coherex® as a function of vehicle
passes after .application.
3.6 RESULTS FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON PAVED ROADS
As shown in Table 3-7, 23 tests of open dust emissions from vehicular
traffic on paved roads in integrated iron and steel plants were performed.
Of these, 12 were tests of controlled roads. The control measures tested
were: (a) vacuum sweeping, (b) water flushing, and (c) flushing with broom
sweeping. All tests (except those of vacuum sweeping) began immediately
after the application of the control and lasted between 1 and 5-1/2 hr.
The remaining 11 tests were of uncontrolled paved roads in order to deter-
mine the efficiency of each control.
3.6.1 Emission Factors
Table 3-22 lists the individual point values of isokinetically corrected
exposure (net mass per sampling intake area) within the dust plume as measured
by the exposure profiling equipment.
Table 3-23 compares particulate concentrations measured by the upwind
hi-vol and by three types of downwind samplers (exposure profiling head,
standard hi-vol, and high-volume cascade impactor) located 5 m from the test
road and near the vertical center of the plume at a height of 2 m above
ground. For the profiler concentrations, both nonisokinetic and isokinetic
values are given.
57
-------
TABLE 3-17. AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE DATA - LIGHT-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
01
Oo
Mass median
Site
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Control
measure
None
None
None
None
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Run
F-28
F-29b
F-30
F-31
F-40
F-41
F-42
F-43r
F-44C
diameter
Ht=lm
> 100
-
49
58
64
> 100
> 100
72
(Mm)3
Ht-3m
> 100
-
47
14
1.4
18
20
26
% <
Ht-lm
17
-
51
48
96
30
26
44
50 jjni
Ht=3m
29
-
52
77
~ 100
71
72
69
% <
Ht=lm
8
-
29
26
76
16
16
24
15 urn
Ht=3m
14
-
31
51
~ 100
46
43
34
% <
Ht-lm
3
-
15
13
41
8
9
12
5 urn
Ht-3m
6
-
16
27
99
25
19
10
% <
Ht-lm
2
-
8
7
20
4
6
7
2.5 pin
Ht-3m
4
-
10
13
85
14
9
4
These values are based on a large log-normal extrapolation of measured data.
Size distribution of F-30 used.
Insufficient substrate loadings, F-43 data used.
-------
TABLE 3-18. ISOKINETIC CORRECTION PARAMETERS FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
Site
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Control
measure
None
None
None
None
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Wind speed
Ht = Ira
Run
F-28
F-29
F-30
F-31
F-40
F-41
F-42
F-43
F-44
(cm/s)
44
233
143
107
148
172
233
328
323
(fpm)
86
459
282
211
291
339
458
646
635
nr=
(cm/s)
79
313
201
163
207
263
358
434
439
3m
( fpm)
156
617
396
321
408
517
705
855
865
Intake velocity
Ht =
(cm/s)
128
144
128
126
256
186
184
305
268
1m
(fpm)
252
285
251
249
503
366
362
601
527
lit =
(cm/s)
174
254
181
183
294
281
323
482
470
3m
(fpra)
342
500
356
360
579
553
635
949
926
Measured
isokinetic ratio
Ht=lm
2.93
0.621
0.890
1.18
1.73
1.08
0.790
0.930
0.830
Hl=3nT
2.19
0.810
0.899
1.12
1.42
1.07
0.901
1.10
1.07
en
-------
TABLE 3-19. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC DATA AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRAFFIC3 ON UNPAVED ROADS
Site
B
B
b
b
B
B
B
b
b
Control
measure
None
None
None
None
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Run
F-28
F-29
F-30
F-31
F-40
F-41
F-42
F-43
F-44
"Mean vefiicTe
Silt speed v
(%) (kph) (raph) (t
24
24
24
24
0.015 40
0.075 40
0.99 40
40
1.8 40
15
15
15
15
25
25
25
25
25
Mean
'ehicle weight
.onnesj" [tons)
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Hean No! of
wheels per
vehicle pas
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
s TJ^TVKTT""
3.02
4.00
2.81
3.50
0.0252
0.185
0.333
0.344
0.347
l>
TTE/VRH 1
10.7
14.2
9.98
12.4
0.0894
0.657
1.18
1.22
1.23
Emission
Tactors
_ .__.
IP FT
[kg/VKT)
0.296
1.20
0.843
1.10
0.0172
0.0533
0.104
0.102
0.108
(Ib/VMT)
1.05
4.25
2.99
3.90
0.0610
0.189
0.368
0.363
0.383
(kg/VKT)
0.0691
0.358
0.253
0.288
0.0089/
0.0165
0.0266
0.0205
0.0216
TWVHTT
0.245
1.27
0.898
1.02
0.0318
0.0584
0.0945
0.0726
0.0766
Captive traffic.
cr>
o
-------
TABLE 3-20. NORMALIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
Normalized Emission Factors (q/VKT)
Control
Measure
None
Coherex
No. of
Tests Range
4 2820-4010
5 15.1-208
TP
Geometric
mean
3300
108
Geometric
standard
deviation
1.17
3.09
Range
296-1200
10.3-64.9
IP
Geometric
mean
756
38.4
Geometric
standard
deviation Range
1.90 69.1-358
2.20 5.39-16.0
FP
Geometric
mean
206
10.6
Geometric
standard
deviation
2.10
1.52
Normalized to vehicle speed of 24 kph (15 mph)
-------
TABLE 3-21. CONTROL EFFICIENCIES OF COIIEREX FOR LIGHT-DUTY TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
en
ro
Control
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Coherex
Application intensity
0.86 A/in2 (0.19 gal/yd2)
of 17% solution
0.86 £/m2 (0.19 gal /yd2)
of 17% solution
0.86 £/m2 (0.19 gal /yd2)
of 17% solution
0.86 £/m2 (0.19 gal/yd2)
of 17% solution
0.86 £/m2 (0.19 gal /yd2)
of 17% solution
Time
after
Appl ication
(hr)
25
28
45
49
51
Time
after
Rainfall
(days)
16
16
1
1
1
Control efficiency (%)
TP IP FP
99.5 98.6 97.4
96.6 95.8 95.2
94.0 91.8 92.2
93.7 91.9 94.0
93.7 91.4 93.7
0.1 inch or more.
-------
100
crt
u>
X
o
c
-------
100
en
x
u
c
0)
"o
LU
"o
-4—
c
o
u
95
90 -
0
Key:
O
a
—oTP
a IP
—A FP
0.86 Vm2 (0.19 gal/yd2)
of 17% solution in water
J_
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Vehicle Passes After Treatment
1200
1400
Figure 3-9. Decay in control efficiency of Coherex applied to a light-duty
unpaved road as a function of vehicular passes.
-------
TABLE 3-22. PLUME SAMPLING DATA FOR PAVED ROADS
Control
Site measure
A None
A None
A Vac. sweep.
A Vac. sweep.
A Vac. sweep.
A Vac. sweep.
D None
D None
Run
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
F-38
F-39
F-61
F-62
Sampling
height
On)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Sampling
(nrVhr)
12
12
17
17
21
28
37
36
21
26
31
33
35
15
21
25
. 28
30
15
24
27
31
34
23
30
33
38
38
31
42
45
54
56
35
45
51
60
62
rate
Ccfra)
7
7
10
10
12
17
22
21
13
15
18
19
21
9
12
15
17
18
9
14
16
18
20
14
18
20
22
22
18
24
27
32
33
20
27
30
35
36
Net TP
exposure
(mg/cm2)
1.24
0.82
0.66
0.42
3.18
2.02
1.12
0.00
0.406
0.420
0.254
0.116
0.192
1.04
0.592
0.435
0.340
0.303
0.748
0.562
0.330
0.351
0.267
1.14
0.985
0.844
0.738
0.825
2.95
2.60
1.97
1.66
0.987
2.66
2.58
2.07
1.29
0.00
65
-------
TABLE 3-22 (continued)
Control
Site measure Run
D Water Flush. F-74
F None F-27
F None F-45
J None F-32
K Flushing and B-52
broom sweeping
L Flushing and B-50
broom sweeping
L Flushing and B-51
broom sweeping
Sampling
height
(m)
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Sampling
(m-Vhr)
36
40
44
47
50
20
30
40
41
15
20
23
25
28
15
24
28
29
15
24
26
19
35
16
26
29
22
35
15
25
28
21
35
rate
(cfm)
21
24
25
28
29
12
18
24
24
9
12
14
15
16
9
14
16
17
9
14
15
11
21
9
15
17
13
21
9
15
17
13
20
Net TP
exposure
(mg/cm2)
1.65
1.55
0.799
1.00
1.13
1.14
0.94
0.66
0.00
3.44
2.50
2.01
1.41
1.45
0.683
0.523
0.385
0.346
0.404
0.221
0.248
0.144
0.187
0.820
0.922
0.695
0.623
0.00
1.60
1.46
1.10
0.477
0.606
66
-------
TABLE 3-22 (continued)
Site
I
L
L
L
M
M
M
Sampling
Control height
measure Run (m)
Flushing B-54 I
2
3
4
5
Flushing B-55 1
2
3
4
5
Flushing B-56 1
2
3
4
5
None B-58 1
2
3
4
5
Flushing and B-53 1
broom sweeping 2
3
4
5
None B-57 1
2
3
4
5
None B-59 1
2
3
4
5
Sampling
(nrVhr)
15
24
26
19
35
17
26
29
21
39
18
27
30
22
35
15
24
27
21
36
15
24
27
20
35
15
24
26
19
32
15
24
26
23
40
rate
(cfm)
9
14
15
11
21
10
15
17
12
23
10
16
18
13
21
9
14
16
12
21
9
14
16
12
20
9
14
15
11
19
9
14
15
14
24
Net TP
exposure
(mg/cm2)
1.21
0.682
0.592
0.145
0.183
1.28
1.00
0.601
0.514
0.257
0.549
0.420
0.282
0.186
0.179
2.00
0.569
0.805
0.431
0.300
0.661
0.462
0.240
0.0547
0.00
1.18
1.39
1.09
0.605
0.439
1.93
0.597
0.887
0.433
0.379
67
-------
TABLE 3-22 (concluded)
Control
Site measure Run
Sampling
height
(m)
Sampling
(nrVhr)
rate
(cfm)
Net TP
exposure
(mg/cm2)
None B-60 1 20 12 1.34
2 26 15 1.51
3 26 15 0.803
4 19 11 0.603
5 30 18 0.430
a Isokinetically corrected.
68
-------
TABLE 3-23. PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS FOR PAVED ROADS
en
Participate concentration (ug/m3) at
Site
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
F
F
J
K
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
Control measure
None
None
Vacuum sweeping
Vacuum sweeping
Vacuum sweeping
Vacuum sweeping
None
None
Water Flushing
None
None
None
Flushing and broom sweeping
Flushing and broom sweeping
Flushing and broom sweeping
Water Flushing
Water Flushing
Water Flushing
None
Flushing and broom sweeping
None
None
None
Run
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
F-38
F-39
F-61
F-62
F-74
F-27
F-45
F-32
B-52
B-50
B-51
B-54
B-55
B-56
B-58
B-53
B-57
B-59
B-60
Upwi nd
background
732
1,080
168
247
162
64
189
189
166
886
161
144
184
226
226
250
250
197
161
340
277
140
140
2 m above ground
Downwi nd
Profiler
Nonisokinetic
2,540
1,660
243
441
512
310
1,090
1,090
454
1,180
1,580
286
339
644
1,130
678
959
593
551
676
1,106
452
1,050
Isokinetic
1,840
1,520
243
466
549
322
1,090
1,090
454
1,180
1,860
276
683
804
1,640
780
843
654
514
769
1,990
451
1,210
Cascade
impactor
1,880
1,790
398
411
568
372
1,580
1,240
300
1,110
1,030
232
190
407
1,080
• 537
752
488
750
410
619
736
769
Standard
hi-vol
801
945
212
331
453
328
961
973
399
894
1,180
177
402
' 661
N/A
689
599
522
1,080
627
951
797
620
a Interpolated from 1 m and 3 m concentrations.
-------
Table 3-24 summarizes the particle sizing data for the tests of vehicu-
lar traffic on paved roads. Particle size is expressed in terms of aerody-
namic diameter.
Table 3-25 gives the wind speed and intake velocity used to calculate
the isokinetic ratios for each run. These values, in conjunction with the
previous table, were used to determine isokinetically corrected concentra-
tions and exposures according to the procedure described earlier.
Table 3-26 presents the isokinetic emission factors for total particu-
late, inhalable particulate, and fine particulate. Also indicated in this
table are vehicle and site parameters which have been found to have a sig-
nificant effect on the emission rates from uncontrolled paved roads.
3.6.2 Control Efficiencies
In order to determine control efficiencies, it was necessary to deter-
mine normalized TP, IP, and FP emission factors, as discussed earlier. The
range, geometric mean and geometric standard deviation of the normalized
emission factors are given in Table 3-27. Following the procedure described
earlier in this section, efficiencies of the different control measures were
found and are presented in Table 3-28. Note that two tests were omitted in
the determination of control efficiencies. Run F-74 was the only test of
water flushing at Plant F; because no replicates were available, these re-
sults were not incorporated in an efficiency of control. Furthermore, be-
cause only one test (F-32) was performed at site J and no reliable silt con-
tent was available for this site, F-32 was omitted.
The results for vacuum sweeping of paved roads suggest that, initially,
the control efficiency decreases with decreasing particle size. The effi-
ciency in all size ranges decays with time. In some cases, negligible IP
and FP control efficiencies were found.
The other two control measures, water flushing and flushing and broom
sweeping, appear to be equally effective in all size ranges considered.
Flushing and broom sweeping is more effective than flushing alone, although
the additional benefit is less pronounced for fine particulate emissions.
This is believed to be a valid statement despite the differences in time
after rainfall because both controls involve wetting the surface.
3.7 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
During the course of this field testing program, 18 tests of vehicular
traffic on uncontrolled roads were performed. Eleven of these tests were
conducted on paved roads and the remainder on unpaved roads. In addition to
providing baseline emission data for control efficiency determination, these
tests expanded the data bases used in forming the MRI predictive emission
factor equations in Table 1-1.2
Although the purpose of this study was the measurement of control effi-
ciency, the uncontrolled tests were included in the data base to determine
how well the MRI equations predict measured emission levels. This is of
particular interest because MRI is currently in the process of refining the
70
-------
TABLE 3-24. AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE DATA - PAVED ROADS
median diameter (Mm)
Site
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
0
F
F
,1
K
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
Control measure
None
None
Vacuum sweeping
Vacuum sweeping
Vacuum sweeping
Vacuum sweeping
None
None
Water flushing
None
None
None
Flushing and broom
sweeping
Flushing and broom
sweeping
Flushing and broom
sweeping
Water flushing
Water flushing
Water flushing
None
Flushing and broom
sweeping
None
None
None
Run
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
F-38
F-39
F-61
F-62
F-74
F-27
F-45
F-32
B-52
B-50
B-51
B-54
B-55
B-56
B-58
B-53
B-57
B-59
B-60
lit = 1m
45
27
18
18
35
18
55
60
> 100
30
> 100
20
> 100
> 100
65
> 100
30
40
29
> 100
> 100
40
57
Fit = 3m
42
23
8
85
7
10
47
50
100
12
65
13
> 100
> 100
38
29
19
18
20
> 100
100
33
56
% < 50 uma
FHmiii HlS~1i
52
64
74
74
57
73
48
46
25
60
34
67
26
38
44
27
64
55
64
26
33
54
47
54
68
98
42
90
85
56
50
44
79
45
78
30
30
55
63
77
78
72
30
39
56
48
%<
Ht = 1m
30
38
46
46
35
45
25
25
18
36
16
45
12
29
20
16
30
27
33
17
15
29
26
15 urn
Ht = 3ro
32
40
69
26
70
59
32
28
33
55
26
54
20
24
29
32
43
44
42
22
21
36
31
% < 5
Ht = 1m
14
18
22
22
18
21
11
11
13
18
6
25
5
14
7
9
9
10
12
10
6
13
13
urn
III = 3m
15
19
36
16
42
31
15
14
24
31
13
31
12
14
11
15
16
16
18
16
10
24
18
% < 2.5 urn
Ht = Im
e
10
12
12
11
11
6
6
10
10
3
16
3
8
2
6
2
5
5.
7
3
6
8
Ht = 3m
9
10
19 ,
10
25
17
8
8
20
18
8
18
9
10
4
8
4
6
9
13
6
16
12
TItese values are EaselTon sTTarge Tog-normal extrapolation oT^measured dala.
-------
TABLE 3-25. ISOKINETIC CORRECTION PARAMETERS FOR PAVED ROADS
Wind speed
Site
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
D
F
F
J
K
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
Control
measure Run
None F-34
None F-35
Vac. sweep. F-36
Vac. sweep. F-37
Vac. sweep. F-38
Vac. sweep. F-39
None F-61
None F-62
Water F-74
flushing
None F-27
' None F-45
None F-32
Flushing & 6-52
broom sweep.
Flushing & B-50
broom sweep.
Flushing & B-51
broom sweep.
Water B-54
flushing
Water B-55
flushing
Water B-56
flushing
None B-58
Flushing & B-53
broom sweep.
None B-57
None B-59
None B-60
Ht =
(cm/s)
157
292
211
733
165
253
434
474
354
313
148
221
102
184
182
149
266
209
248
157
76
216
181
1m
(fpm)
310
574
416
262
324
498
855
933
696
617
291
436
201
362
358
294
523
411
488
309
150
425
357
Ht =
~ici7ir~
221
383
313
218
205
322
528
610
454
538
210
301
137
262
184
249
389
284
299
245
167
275
228
3m
IfpiJ
435
754
617
429
404
633
1,040
1,200
894
1.060
414
592
270
516
363
491
766
558
588
483
329
541
448
Ht =
(cm/s)
128
221
232
164
163
250
339
374
393
270
164
162
177
193
173
166
194
207
166
168
166
209
165
Intake velocity
1m
ffpmT
251
436
458
322
321
493
667
737
773
531
323
318
348
380
340
326
382
407
327
331
326
412
325
Ht =
Tclii7sT~
181
395
332
268
292
370
484
549
482
549
273
295
291
346
337
279
311
323
286
295
279
280
277
3m
I fpm)
357
777
654
528
574
728
952
1,080
948
1,080
538
580
572
681
664
550
613
636
564
580
549
552
546
Mea
isokine
flt^Tm
0.815
0.757
1.10
1.23
0.989
0.988
0.781
0.789
1.11
0.863
1.11
0.733
1.74
1.05
0.951
1.11
0.729
0.990
0.669
1.07
2.18
0.968
0.912
sured
tic ratio
llt=3m
0.819
1.03
1.06
1.23
1.42
1.15
0.917
0.900
1.06
1.02
1.30
0.980
2.12
1.32
1.83
1 12
0.799
1.14
0 957
1.20
1.67
1.02
1.21
-------
TABLE 3-26. ROAD SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS AND EMISSION FACTORS FOR PAVED ROADS
Control
Site measure
A
A
A
A
A
A
0
I)
U
F
F
J
K
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
a
b ,
None
None
Vacuum sweeping
Vacuum sweeping
Vacuum sweeping
Vacuum sweeping
None
None
Water flushing
None
None
None
Flushing and
broom sweeping
Flushing and
broom sweeping
Flushing and
broom sweeping
Water flushing
Water flushing
Water flushing
None
Flushing and
broom sweeping
None
None
None
Average of two or more
lane characteristics
Run
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
F-38
F-39
F-61
F-62
F-74
F-27
F-45
0-32
B-52
B-50
B-51
B-54
B-55
B-56
B-58
B-53
B-57
B-59
B-60
values.
No.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Widtli
(m)
2.59
2.59
3.72
3.11
4.02
3.11
4.72
4.72
4.72
3.B1
3.81
3.35
3.29
3.75
3.75
3.75
-
4.02
-
-
3.72
4.18
4.11
(ft)
8.5
8.5
12. 2a
10. 2a
13.2
10.2
15.5
15.5
15.5
12.5
12.5
111.0
10.8
12.3
12.3
12.3
-
13.2
-
-
12.2
13.7
13.5
Silt
(%)
16
10.4
18.3
26.4
27.9
19.6
21.0
20.3 ,
9.45a
35.7
28.4
13.4
34.3
28.2°
U
28. 2b
22.6
19. 6a
11.2
17.9
9.94
6 45a
14. Oa
13.5
Loading
(kg/M
90.0
101
8.21
9.84,
6.26a
14.0
804
671
558a
316
137
5.84
138
361
361
125
244a
172
440
-
268
123
194
( Ib/mi)
319
358
29.1
34.9
22.2
49.8
2,850
2,380a
l,980a
1,120
487
20.7
489
1,280
1,280
444
866a
611
1,560
-
949
435
688
Mean
vehicle weight
(tonnes)
25
23
7.5
15
16
16
36
33
26
13
15
13
11
8.5
10
9.1
10
8.3
16
18
11
10
11
(tons)
28
25
8.3
17
18
18
40
36
29
14
16
14
12
9.4
11
10
11
9.2
18
20
12
11
12
TP
< lcg/VI
-------
TABLE 3-27. NORMALIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON PAVED ROADS
Control
Measure Plant
None 0
None B
Vacuum Sweeping 0
Water Flushing B
•*> Flushing and B
Broom
Sweeping
TP
No. of Geometric
Tests Range mean
6 159-2930
4 234-1540
4 148-412
3 367-491
4 152-573
959
880
246
404
270
Normalized3 Emission Factors (g/VKT)
IP FP
Geometric Geometric
standard Geometric standard Geometric
deviation Range mean deviation Range mean
3.40 66.9-1140 221 3.59 19.6-278 53.8
2.44 86.9-516 260 2.18 15.8-174 72.4
1.52 77.3-244 126 1.70 23.0-72.2 38.5
1.18 90.8-182 133 1.42 21.5-24.0 23.1
1.83 28.2-138 57.1 2.12 12.4-37.5 20.4
Geometric
standard
deviation
.',.19
2.95
1.79
1.06
1.62
The normalizing values are:
Silt Content x Surface Loading
Mean Vehicle Weight
Plant F
Plant B
350 kg/km (100 Ib/mile) 350 kg/km (100 Ib/mile)
24 tonnes (22 tons) 14 tonnes (13 tons)
-------
TABLE 3-28. CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR PAVED ROADS
en
Application
Control frequency
Vacuum sweeping Every 2 days
Water Flushing Once per 3 days
Flushing and Once per 3 days
broom sweeping
Application
intensity
340 mVmin
(12,000 cfm)
vacuum blower
capacity
2.2 £/m2
(0.48 gal/yd2)
2.2 £/m2
(0.48 gal/yd2)
Time
after
appl ication
(hr)
2.8
24.4
2.1
4.1
0.68d
0.70d
Time
after
rainfall
(days)
12
13
14
14
3.3d
1.3d
Control
TP
69.8
51.8
47.8
16.1
54.1
69.3
efficiency (
IP FP
50.9 49.
57.7 51.
16.3 c
c c
48.8 68.
78'. 0 71.
o/\
/°.)
2
4
1
8
0.1 inch or more.
Control efficiencies based on same-site testing.
No reduction in emissions observed.
Average of three tests.
-------
predictive equations by including recent test results from a variety of
roads (industrial paved and unpaved, urban paved, and rural unpaved). This
work is supported under EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158.
The results of the comparison of predicted and measured emissions are
presented in Tables 3-29 and 3-30 for unpaved and paved roads, respectively.
The first entries in each table comprise the data base in Reference 2, while
the tests performed in this study begin with F-28 and F-27, respectively.
It should be noted that F-32 is excluded from the data base for paved roads
for the same reasons given in Section 3.6.2, namely, the lack of replicates
and unreliable silt content and surface loading values.
The precision factors (two standard deviations) associated with the
predictive equations are shown in the following table:
Precision factor as a
Function of Data Base
Reference 2
Reference 2 and Present Study
Unpaved Roads 1.48 1.98
Paved Roads 2.20 3.95
The fact that the precision factors increase when predicting measurements
in the larger data base illustrates the need for possible refinement of
MRI's predictive equations. .As mentioned earlier, this process is underway.
76
-------
TABLE 3-29. PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL EMISSIONS (UNPAVED ROADS)
Run
R-l
R-2
R-3
R-8
R-10
R-13
A- 14
A- 15
E-l
E-2
E-3
F-21
F-22
F-23
G-27
G-28
G-29
G-30
G-31
G-32
1-3
1-5
F-28
F-29
F-30
F-31
F-68
F-69
F-70
Silt
Average
vehicle speed
(%) (km/hr) (mph)
12
13
13
20
5
68
4.8
4.8
8.7
8.7
8.7
9.0
9.0
9.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.7
4.7
10C
10C
10C
10C
14r
15C
16
48
48
64
48
64
48
48
48
23
26
26
24
24
24
35
37
39
40
47
35
24
24
24
24
24
24
32
32
32
30
30
40
30
40
30
30
30
14
16
16
15
15
15
22
23
24
25
29
22
15
15
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
Avoraqe
vehicle weight
(tonnes) (tons)
3
3
3
3
3
3
64
64
31
31
21
3
3
4
15
11
8
13
7
27
61
142
3
3
3
3
20
48
48
3
3
3
3
3
3
70
70
34
34
23
3
3
4
17
12
9
14
8
30
67
157
3
3
3
3
29
53
53
[missjon factor
Averaije Ho.
vehicle wbee
4.0
4.0
4 0
4.5
4 0
4.0
4.0
4.0
9.4
8.3
6.4
4.0
4.0
4.1
11.0
9.5
7.8
8.5
6.2
13.0
C.O
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.9
10.0
10.0
of Predicted
Is
-------
TABLE 3-30. PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL EMISSIONS (PAVED ROADS)
Koad surface dust
Av/ct
CO
Run Type
P-9
P-10
Pulver-
ized .
topsoil"
P-14 I Gravel*1
E-7
E-8
P-3,
P-b,
P-6
P-15,
P-16
Iron and
steel
Plant
Urban
arterial
site le
Urban
arterial
site 2'-
F-13 \
1 Iron and
F-14 steel
F-15
F-16
F-17
plant
Iron and
steel
plant
F-18
F-27-
F-34
F-35
F-45
F-61
F-62
Iron and
'•steel
plant
loa
excludi
(ku7km)
1,990
809
1,890
225
225
45. lf
42. Of
57.2
57.2
57.2
629
629
629
316
90 0
101
137
804
671
ding
ny curbs
(ib7roilc)
7,060
2,870
6,700
800
800
160f
149f
203
203
203
2.230
2,230
2.230
1,120
319
358
487
2,850
2,380
No. of
traffic
lanes
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Silt
45
92
23
5.1
5.J
10f
10f
13.2
13.2
13.2
6.8
6 8
6.8
35.7
16
10.4
28 4
21.0
20.3
1
( industrial )
uuil tip) ier)
1
1
1
/
7
1
1
1
1
1
3.5
3 5
I
1
1
1
t
1
1
vulijr l<;
wciubt
(tonnes)
3
3
3
6
1
3
3
7
5
5
12
11
b
13
25
23
15
36
13
( tons )
3
3
3
7
8
3
3
8
5
5
13
12
5
14
28
25
16
40
36
Lmiss ion
Predicted
(kg/VKI)
0.82
0.68
0.39
0.26
0.29
0 0039
0 0037
0.096
0.068
0.068
0. 76
0. 70
0.11
0.59
0.12
0.085
0.23
1.9
1.4
( Ib/VMI )
2.9
2.4
1.4
0.93
1.02
0.014
0.013
0.34
0.24
0.24
2.7
2.5
0.39
2.1
0.44
0.30
0.80
6.6
5.0
(act 01 s
Actual
(ku,/VKI)
1.0
0.59
0. 13
0.21
0.28
0.0042
0.0037
0. 16
O.ObG
0.045
0. 7(1
0.48
0.14
0. 16
0.26
0.39
0.31
0 60
0.48
(Ib/VMI)
3.7
2.1
0.46
0. /6
1.0
0.015
0.0130
0.58
0.20
0. 16
2.5
1.7
0.48
0.56
0. 92
1.4
l.l
2.4
1.7
Predict i
0. 78
1. 14
1.04
1.22
1.02
0.93
1.00
0.5'J
1.2U
1 . 50
1 08
1 '17
0.81
3.75
0.48
0 21
0.73
2 75
2.94
-------
TABLE 3-30. (Concluded)
Road surface dust
I odd i in)
excluding curbs"
Run
B-57J
B-58 (
B-59 1
B-60 )
fypi.-
stool
plant
(kg/km)
268
440
123
1<)4
(Ib/mile)
949
1,560
435
688
N... of
traffic
lanes
2
2
2
2
Sill
m
6.5
17.9
14.0
13.5
1
AVP ratio
vphir le
( indusl rial ) woiglit
mul I ipl ier)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
( lonnos)
11
16
10
II
(Ions)
12
18
Jl
12
1 in i s s i on
Predicted '
(k«/VKI)
0.28
i.;
0.27
0.42
(Ib/VMl)
1.0
6.2
0.95
1.5
factors
Actual
(kg/VKf)
0.31
0.56
0.45
0.54
(Ih/VMI)
1. I
2.0
1.6
1.9
Credit tod
= Actual
0.91
3. 10
0.59
0. 79
Loading distributed over traveled portion of road, i.e., traffic lanes.
Particles smaller than JO put in Stokes diameter based on actual density of sill particles.
Based on revised MRI emission factor equation in Table 1-1.
Four-lane test roadway artifically loaded.
Four-lane roadway with traffic count of about 10,000 vehicles per day, mostly light-duty.
Estimated value.
-------
4.0 WIND EROSION TESTING BY PORTABLE WIND TUNNEL
This section describes the field testing program using the MRI portable
wind tunnel to determine the efficiency of control measures applied to stor-
age piles. The following tests were performed at two integrated iron and
steel plants - Armco's Middletown Works (designated as Plant F) and Bethlehem
Steel's Burns Harbor Plant (designated as Plant H):
Fourteen tests of wind erosion from uncontrolled coal storage
piles.
Twelve tests of wind erosion from controlled coal storage piles.
Two tests of wind erosion from an active exposed area.
One test of wind erosion from an inactive exposed area.
4.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The sampling and analysis procedures followed in this field testing
program were subject to certain quality control guidelines. These guide-
lines will be discussed in conjunction with the activities to which they
apply. These procedures met or exceeded the requirements specified in Sec-
tion 3.0.
As part of the QC program for this study, routine audits of sampling
and analysis procedures were performed. The purpose of the audits was to
demonstrate that measurements were made within acceptable control conditions
for particulate source sampling and to assess the source testing data for
precision and accuracy. Examples of items audited include gravimetric ana-
lysis, flow rate calibration, data processing, and emission factor and con-
trol efficiency calculation. The mandatory use of specially designed re-
porting forms for sampling and analysis data obtained in the field and lab-
oratory aided in the auditing procedure. Further detail on specific sampling
and analysis procedures are provided in the following sections.
4.2 AIR SAMPLING TECHNIQUE AND EQUIPMENT
The portable wind tunnel method allows i_ri situ measurement of emissions
from wind erosion of storage piles and exposed areas. The MRI portable pull-
through wind tunnel (Figure 4-1) consists of an inlet contraction, a working
section, a sampling section, and a power system. The open-floored working
section of the tunnel was placed directly on the surface to be tested, and
the tunnel air flow was adjusted to values corresponding to the means of
the upper NOAA wind speed ranges. Tunnel wind speed was measured by a pitot
tube at the downstream end of the working section and was related to wind
speed at the standard 10-m (30.5 ft) height by means of a logarithmic profile.
81
-------
00
ro
Figure 4-1. MRI portable wind tunnel.
-------
To minimize the dust levels in the tunnel air intake stream, testing
was conducted only when ambient winds were below the threshold velocity for
erosion of the exposed material. A portable high volume sampler with an
open-faced filter was operated on top of the inlet contraction to measure
background dust levels.
An emissions sampling section was used with the pull-through wind tunnel
in measuring particulate emissions generated by wind erosion. As shown in
Figure 4-1, the sampling section was located between the working section
outlet hose and the blower inlet. The sampling train, which was operated
at 425 to 708 £/min (15 to 25 ftVmin) consisted of a tapered probe, cyclone
precollector, parallel slot cascade impactor, backup filter, and high volume
sampler. Interchangeable probe tips were sized for isokinetic sampling over
the desired tunnel wind speed range.
Test sites at the two plants were formed by plant personnel. At plant
F, a small level area for uncontrolled testing (as shown in Figure 4-2) was
formed from the steam coal storage pile with a bulldozer. Controlled tests
were conducted directly on the treated pile.
At plant H, test sites were prepared by having a front-end loader form
two piles approximately 12 m x 15 m x 0.15 m (40 ft x 50 ft x 6 in.) in an
area of the coal yard which is not heavily traveled. These test beds are
shown in Figure 4-3.
The use of a front-end loader at plant H resulted in a compacted sur-
face which is not representative of piles in the plant. For this reason,
some test sites were also prepared by turning the surface with a shovel.
Controlled and uncontrolled tests were run on both compacted and turned
surfaces.
In order to adequately define the extent of the control measure at plant
H, provision was made to measure application intensity. The latex binder
(Dow Chemical M-167) regularly used at the plant was applied to the west test
bed, and provisions were made to measure the application intensity. Six
tared sampling pans were placed in the test bed prior to spraying and were
then reweighed. Special attention was paid to the problems of the binder
running off the coal into the pans and of the spray bouncing off the bottom
of the pan. In order to reduce these potential errors, the lip of the pan
was placed just above the coal surface and an absorbent material was used
to line the bottom. A cross-sectional view of the sampling pan is shown in
Figure 4-4.
4.3 PARTICULATE SAMPLE HANDLING AND ANALYSIS
4.3.1 Preparation of Sample Collection Media
Particulate samples were collected on type A slotted glass fiber im-
pactor substrates and on type AE glass fiber filters. To minimize the prob-
lem of particle bounce, the glass fiber cascade impactor substrates were
greased.
83
-------
•Tunnel Location for
Controlled Tests
Level Area Formed
by Dozer for
Uncontrolled Tests
-------
North
To Coal Piles
and Coke Battery
00
en
Location of
Sampling Pans
(See Figure 4-4)
W-4*
-X-
W-l
W-3
Surface Turned
Before Application
of Latex Binder
W-2
-X-
-x-
12m (40ft)-
15m
(50ft)
12m
(40ft)
15m (50ft)-
Letters Indicate Test Site Location
1" = 20'
Figure 4-3. Test site locations at plant H.
-------
oo
~1 cm (0.4 in)
No Scale
Figure 4-4. Sampling pan detail
-------
The grease solution was prepared by dissolving 140 g of stopcock grease in
1 liter of reagent grade toluene. No grease was applied to the borders and
backs of the substrates. The substrates were handled, transported and stored
in specially designed frames which protected the greased surfaces.
Prior to the initial weighing, the greased impactor substrates and hi-
vol filters were equilibrated for 24 hr at constant temperature and humidity
in a special weighing room. During weighing, the balance was checked at fre-
quent intervals with standard weights to assure accuracy. The substrates
and filters remained in the same controlled environment for another 24 hr,
after which a second analyst reweighed them as a weighing accuracy check.
If substrates or filters could not pass audit limits, the entire batch was
reweighed. Ten percent of the substrates and filters taken to the field
were used as blanks. The quality assurance guidelines are the same as those
presented in Table 3-1.
4.3.2 Pre-Test Procedures/Evaluation of Sampling Conditions
Prior to equipment deployment, a number of decisions were made concern-
ing the potential for acceptable testing conditions. To reduce dust levels
in the tunnel air intake stream, testing would be conducted only if the am-
bient winds were well below the erosion threshold velocity of the surface
being tested. Testing was not performed on days of or after considerable
rainfall unless provisions were made to protect the test surface from the
weather.
If conditions were deemed acceptable, equipment deployment began. Dur-
ing this 2-hr period, both high volume air samplers were calibrated using
the quality control guidelines of Table 4-1.
TABLE 4-1. QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING FLOW RATES
Activity
QC Check/Requirement
Calibration
Impactors and background
hi-vol
Orifice calibration
Calibrate flows in operating ranges
using calibration orifice each day
prior to testing.
Calibrate against displaced volume
test meter annually.
87
-------
Once the source testing equipment was in place, a threshold velocity
test was performed. The purposes of this preliminary test were to determine
the minimum velocity at which wind erosion is initiated and to gather other
data needed for sampling and analysis. The threshold velocity for a parti-
cular surface was determined by observing the onset of surface particle move-
ment as the wind velocity was gradually increased. A subthreshold velocity
profile was then measured using the pi tot tube in the working section. This
subthreshold velocity profile allows the calculation of the surface rough-
ness height.
After these data were obtained, tunnel air speeds were determined cor-
responding to the means of the first three upper NOAA wind speed ranges
above the threshold velocity of the uncontrolled test surface. A sampling
train flow rate and probe tip were selected to insure isokinetic sampling.
A test series consisted of runs at these three wind speeds (in ascending
order) at the same site.
4-3.3 Sample Handling and Analysis
To prevent particulate losses, the exposed media were carefully trans-
ferred at the end of each run to protective containers within the MRI in-
strument van. In the field laboratory, exposed filters were placed in indi-
vidual glassine envelopes and numbered file folders. Substrates were replaced
in the protective frames. Particulate that collected on the interior surface
of the cyclone preseparator was rinsed with distilled water into sample jars
which were then capped and taped shut.
When exposed impactor substrates and hi-vol filters (and the associated
blanks) were returned to the MRI laboratory, they were equilibrated under
the same conditions as the initial weighing. After reweighing, 10% were
audited to check weighing accuracy. To determine the sample weight of par-
ti cul ate collected on the interior surface of a sampler, the entire wash so-
lution was passed through a 47 mm Buchner type funnel holding a glass fiber
filter under suction. The sample jar was then rinsed twice with 10 to 20 ml
of deionized water. This water was passed through the Buchner funnel ensur-
ing collection of all suspended material on the 47 mm filter which was then
dried in an oven at 100°C for 24 hr. After drying, the filters were condi-
tioned at constant temperature and humidity for 24 hr.
All wash filters were weighed with a 100% audit of tared and a 10% audit
of exposed filters. Blank values were determined by washing "clean" (unex-
posed) settling chambers in the field and following the above procedures.
The quality assurances guidelines governing sample handling and analysis are
the same as those presented in Table 3-1.
4.3.4 Emission Rate Calculation Procedures
To calculate emission rates from wind tunnel data, a conservation of
mass approach is used. The quantity of airborne particulate generated by
wind erosion of the test surface equals the quantity leaving the tunnel
minus the quantity (background) entering the tunnel. The steps in the cal-
culation procedure are described below.
-------
4.3.4.1 Participate Concentrations--
The definitions of participate matter (TP, TSP, IP, FP) are the same
as those given earlier for exposure profiling. Participate concentrations
are determined in a manner identical (and at the same standard conditions) •
to that presented earlier.
4.3.4.2 Flow Rate in Wind Tunnel —
During testing, the wind speed profile along the vertical bisector of
the tunnel working section is measured with a standard pitot tube and in-
clined manometer. The velocity profile near the test surface (tunnel floor)
and the walls of the tunnel is found to follow a logarithmic distribution:
0 -
where: u = wind speed at z (cm/s)
z = distance from test surface (or wall) (cm)
u* = friction velocity (cm/sec)
z = roughness height (cm).
The roughness height of the test surface is determined by extrapolation
of the velocity profile near the surface to u = 0. The roughness height for
the plexiglass walls and ceiling of the tunnel has been measured as 6 x 10-4
cm. These velocity profiles are integrated over the cross-sectional area of
the tunnel to yield the volumetric flow rate through the tunnel for a partic-
ular set of test conditions.
4.3.4.3 Isokinetic Flow Ratio—
A pitot tube and inclined manometer are also used to measure the cen-
terline wind speed in the sampling duct at the point where the sampling
probe is installed. Because the ratio of the centerline wind speed in the
sampling duct to the centerline wind speed in the working section is indepen-
dent of flow rate, it can be used to determine isokinetic sampling condi-
tions for any flow rate in the tunnel.
The isokinetic flow ratio is the ratio of the sampler intake air speed
to the wind speed approaching the sampler. It is given by:
IFR =
aUs
f
where: Qs = sampler flow rate (ms/s)
a = intake area of sampler (m2)
U = wind speed approaching the sampler (m/s).
IFR is of interest in the sampling of TP, since isokinetic sampling assures
that particles of all sizes are sampled without bias. Because probe tips of
various intake areas were available for the cyclone preseparator, all tests
run were within ± 5% of isokinetic conditions.
89
-------
4.3.4.4 Particle Size Distributions--
Particle size distributions were determined from a cascade impactor
using the proper 50% cutoff diameters for the cyclone precollector and each
impaction stage. These data were fitted to a log-normal mass size distribu-
tion after correction for particle bounce using the technique discussed in
Section 3.3.4.3. During controlled wind tunnel tests on coal surfaces, the
background concentration was a significant percentage of the measured down-
wind concentration, especially when testing on the same surface for a second
or third time. Therefore, microscopic analyses of the upwind filters were
performed, because the size distribution of the background particulate was
important. If it had been foreseen that the upwind loading was going to be
such a large portion of the downwind loading, an impactor would have been
placed in the upwind hi-vol to directly measure the particle size distribu-
tion by mass.
4.3.4.5 Particulate Emission Rates--
The emission rate for airborne particulate of a given particle size
range generated by wind erosion of the test surface is given by:
where: E = particulate emission rate (g/m2-sec)
Cn = net particulate concentration (g/m3)
Q. = tunnel flow rate (ms/sec)
A = exposed test area = 0.918 m2
4.3.4.6 Erosion Potential--
If the emission rate is found to decay significantly (by more than 20%)
during back-to-back tests of a given surface at the same wind speed, due to
the presence of nonerodible elements on the surface, then an additional cal-
culation step must be performed to determine the erosion potential of the
test surface. The erosion potential is the total quantity of erodible par-
ticles, in any specified particle size range, present on the surface (per
unit area) prior to the onset of erosion. Because wind erosion is an ava-
lanching process, it is reasonable to assume that the loss rate from the
surface is proportional to the amount of erodible material remaining. The
amount remaining is assumed to be of the form:
Mt = Moe'kt
where: M, = quantity of erodible material present on the surface at any
time (g/m2)
M = erosion potential, i.e., quantity of erodible material pres-
ent on the surface before the onset of erosion (g/m2)
k = constant (s x) •
t = cumulative erosion time (s).
90
-------
Consistent with the above equation, the erosion potential may be calcu-
lated from the measured loss rates from the test surface for two erosion
times:
where: Lj = E^ = measured loss rate during time period 0 to tx (g/m2)
12=1!+ E2(t2 - ti) = measured loss rate during time period 0
to t2 (g/m2)
4.3.5 Control Efficiency Calculation Procedure
The control efficiency in percent (C) for these wind erosion studies
was found by:
C = I 1 - y£Ll± \ X 100%
where \ °'u(
M = erosion potential of the uncontrolled surface
M ' = erosion potential of the controlled surface
It should be noted that an erosion potential can be obtained only if
back-to-back tests at the same wind speed are available and if the emission
rate of the second test is lower than that of the first. Should an erosion
potential not be available, C was determined as:
100%
where: E = emission rate of the uncontrolled surface
E = emission rate of the controlled surface
These emission rates must be based on the same wind speed and on the
same duration of erosion. In order to determine emission rates from several
tests at the same site, it was assumed that any mass eroded on a test at
wind speed Uj, and of duration Tj. would also have been eroded at a subsequent
test if U2 ^ G! and T2 >_ Tj. This approach will be discussed in greater de-
tail in Section 4.5.2.
4.4 AGGREGATE MATERIAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Samples of the test surface were collected, where possible, before and
after each test. When several tests were performed back-to-back, samples
could only be obtained before and after the series. These samples were ana-
lyzed for silt and moisture content.
91
-------
Storage pile samples were removed from a known area using a dust pan and
wnisk broom. The depth of the sample was based on the largest piece of raw
material in the surface. The silt ana moisture analysis procedures were
identical to those presented in Tables 3-5 and 3-6.
4.5 RESULTS FOR WIND EROSION OF COAL PILES
As mentioned earlier in this section, 26 tests of fugitive dust emis-
sions generated by wind erosion of coal piles were performed. In addition
to these tests, three tests of wind erosion of exposed areas in integrated
iron and steel plants were conducted. These tests were preliminary checks
of the sampling equipment's performance.
4-5-1 Emission Rates
Before presenting the results of the 29 wind erosion tests, the charac-
teristics of the test control techniques will be discussed. Two controls
were tested—(1) a 16.7% solution of Coherex® in water applied at an inten-
sity of 3.4 3,/m2 (0.74 gal/yd2) at plant F and (2) a 2.8% solution of Dow
Chemical M-167 Latex Binder in water applied at an average intensity of 6.8
2/m2 (1.5 gal/yd2) at plant H. These control measures were applied by either
plant personnel or a contractor retained by the plant. The Coherex® at plant
0 was applied once in August 1980 and every 4 to 6 weeks thereafter while the
latex binder at plant H was applied approximately every week.
The site and sampling parameters for the runs are shown in Tables 4-2
and 4-3, respectively. The tunnel center!ine wind speeds for the uncon-
trolled tests were selected to correspond to the means of the first three
upper NOAA wind speed ranges above the threshold velocity. Threshold veloc-
ities for each run are presented in Table 4-4.
In anticipation of a high control efficiency associated with the latex
binder, filters were not changed after some tests at plant H in order to pro-
duce an acceptable mass on each substrate of the cascade impactor. The sec-
ond (and sometimes the third) test was then run with the same filters as the
first, but at a higher tunnel velocity. The second test was then denoted by
adding a letter suffix to the prior test number.
Results for test series H-30 through H-30B will not be reported because
of difficulties experienced in filter handling. While the testing was un-
derway, rainstorms entered the area. When the impactor substrates were re-
moved, they were found to be fairly damp but some appeared loaded. However,
upon weighing, net catches were so small as to be beyond the accuracy of the
analysis techniques. It is also possible that some of the wet filter material
became brittle upon drying and flaked off during handling.
Table 4-5 summarizes the particle size data for the wind erosion tests.
Particle sizes are expressed in terms of aerodynamic diameter. Note that
the very small portion of material collected on the interior surface of the
probe tip was ignored in the particle size analysis.
92
-------
TABLE 4-2. WIND EROSION TEST SITE PARAMETERS
OJ
Runa
F-46
F-47
F-48
F-49
F-50
F-51
F-52
F-53
F-54
F-55
F-56
F-57
H-20
H-21
H-22
H-23
H-24
H-25
H-26
H-27
H-28
H-28A
H-29
H-30
H-30A
H-30B
H-31
H-31A
H-31B
Material
Exp. area
Exp. area
Exp. area
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Condition
Inactive
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Undisturbed
Undisturbed
Compacted
Compacted
Compacted
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Compacted
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Control
measure
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Coherex®
Coherex®
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Site
H-l
H-2
H-2
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
E-l
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-2
E-2
E-2
W-l
W-2
W-2
W-2
W-3
W-3
W-3
W-4
W-4
W-4
Date
10/21/80
10/21/80
10/21/80
10/22/80
10/22/80
10/22/80
10/22/80
10/22/80
10/23/80
10/23/80
10/23/80
10/23/80
10/13/81
10/13/81
10/13/81
10/15/81
10/15/81
10/15/81
10/15/81
10/16/81
10/16/81
10/16/81
10/16/81
10/17/81
10/17/81
10/17/81
10/18/81
10/18/81
10/18/81
Start
time
1500
1628
1701
1156
1217
1332
1419
1443
1026
1100
1355
1511
1622
1700
1747
1321
1340
1450
1542
1504
1600
1625
1718
1128
1158
1224
1127
1205
1243
Sampling
duration
(min)
30
10
3
20
10
40
15
60
20
30
60
60
20
20
20
2
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Cross-sectional
1 velocity in
i test section
(m/s)
10.7
8.36
11.6
6.06
8.34
8.34
11.2
11.2
5.49
8.27
11.9
11.9
9.68
12.6
13.0
8.32
8.47
11.2
13.2
12.0
8.63
11.0
13.4
8.99
11.6
14.0
8.89
11.5
13.6
(mph)
23.9
18.7
25.9
13.6
18.7
18.7
25.1
25.1
12.3
18.5
26.6
26.6
21.7
28.1
29.0
18.6
19.0
24.9
29.5
26.9
19.3
24.7
30.0
20.1
25.9
31.2
19.9
25.6
30.5
Temperature
(°C)
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
18
18
18
18
18
12
12
• 12
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
12
12
12
8
8
8
Runs with a letter suffix indicate that filters were not changed from the prior run in order to obtain an
acceptable sample on each substrate of the impactor.
-------
TABLE 4-3. WIND EROSION SAMPLING PARAMETERS
Sampling module
Centerline
velocity
Run
F-46
F-47
F-48
F-49
F-50
F-51
F-52
F-53
F-54
F-55
F-56
F-57
H-20
H-21
H-22
H-23
H-24
H-25
H-26
H-27
H-28
H-28A
H-29
H-30
H-30A
H-30B
H-31
H-31A
H-31B
(m/sl
13.7
10.8
15.0
8.14
11.2
11.2
15.0
15.0
7.11
10.7
15.0
15.0
12.7
16.4
17.0
10.8
11.0
14.4
17.2
17.2
11.1
14.3
17.2
11.1
14.3
17.2
11.1
14.3
17.1
(mph)
30.6
24.2
33.5
18.2
25.0
25.0
33.5
33.5
15.9
24.0
33.5
33.5
28.4
36.7
38.0
24.2
24.6
32.2
38.5
38.5
24.8
32.0
38.5
24.8
32.0
38.5
24.8
32.0
38.3
Flow
rate
(nrVhr)
3,570
2,800
3,890
2,030
2,790
2,790
3,740
3,740
1,840
2,760
4,000
4,000
3,220
4,180
4,320
2,770
2,820
3,710
4,390
4,000
2,870
3,670
4,460
2,990
3,850
4,640
2,960
3,820
4,540
Probe
Diameter
(cm)
1.55
1.98
1.55
2.54
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
2.54
1.98
1.55
1.55
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.55
1.98
1.98
1.55
1.98
1.98
1.55
Area
(oF)
1.89
3.08
1.89
5.07
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
5.07
3.08
1.89
1.89
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
1.88
3.08
3.08
1.88
3.08
3.08
1.88
Velocity^
Approach
(m/s)
38.6
35.4
49.2
20.8
28.6
28.6
38.2
38.2
17.1
25.8
41.1
41.1
27.0
34.0
36.2
24.2
24.2
32.0
38.2
40.0
25.5
32.9
39.6
25.5
32.9
39.6
25.5
32.9
39.6
Inlet
38.2
35.7
49.2
20.7
27.9
27.9
37.4
37.4
17.0
25.7
40.3
40.3
26.6
35.4
36.2
24.0
24.0
32.7
38.4
38.4
24.5
32.7
39.4
24.5
32.7
39.4
25.4
32.7
39.4
IFRa
0.990
1.01
1.00
0.997
0.976
0.976
0.979
0.979
0.997
0.997
0.981
0.981
0.987
1.04
1.00
0.993
0.994
1.02
1.00
0.960
0.961
0.995
0.995
0.961
0.995
0.995
0.997
0.995
0.995
Volume
sampled
(m3)
13.0
6.60
1.68
12.6
5.15
20.6
10.4
41.5
10.4
14.3
27.4
27.4
9.85
13.1
13.4
0.889
8.00
12.1
14.2
14.2
9.06
12.1
8.89
9.06
12.1
8.89
9.40
12.1
8.89
Total mass
collected
(mg)
4.72
309
413
5.06
22.6
38.2
82.9
73.7
5.30
13.2
8.16
5.76
232
459
105
9.43
43.0
135
1,770
198
I
j
50.4
64.2
|
} 675
1
Isokinetic Flow Ratio = Inlet Velocity/Approach Velocity
-------
TABLE 4-4. THRESHOLD VELOCITIES FOR WIND EROSION
Threshold velocity
Tunne!
Run
F-46
F-47
F-48
F-49
F-50
F-51
F-52
F-53
F-54
F-55
F-56
F-57
H-20
H-21
H-22
H-23
H-24
H-25
H-26,
H-27°
H-28dd
H-28AQ
H-29a
H-30
H-30A
H-30B
H-31
H-31A
H-31B
3 Area
b T-
Materia!
Exp. area
Exp. area
Exp. area
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coa!
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coa!
Coa!
Coal
Coal
Coa!
Coa!
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coa!
was quite
Condition
Inactive3
Active?
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active^
Active
Undisturbed
Undisturbed
Compacted
Compacted
Compacted
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Compacted
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
crusted.
..._._ j_ . - _ _ _ t _ j_ __
Control
measure
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Coherex®
Coherex®
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
_ i
Site
H-l
H-2
H-2
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-3
E-l
E-l
E-l
E-2
E-2
E-2
E-2
W-l
W-2
W-2
W-2
W-3
W-3
W-3
W-4
W-4
W-4
center!
m/s
13.0
8.85
8.85
8.14
8.14
8.14
8.14
8.14
5.94
5.94
12.0
12.0
9.21
9.21
9.21
9.48
9.48
9.48
9.48
> 12.7 >
> 11.1 >
> 11.1 >
> 11.1 >
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.3
10.3
10.3
ine
mph
29.2
19.8
19.8
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
13.3
13.3
26.9
26.9
20.6
20.6
20.6
21.2
21.2
21.2
21.2
28.5
24.8
24.8
24.8
22.4
22.4
22.4
23.0
23.0
23.0
Equivalent at
10 m hei
m/s
21.8
15.3
15.3
16.4
16.4
16.4
16.4
16.4
10.4
10.4
18.1
18.1
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
> 24.0 >
> 19.5 >
> 19.5 >
> 19.5 >
14.8
14.8
14.8
15.6
15.6
15.6
qht
mph
48.8
34.3
34.3
36.7
36.7
36.7
36.7
36.7
23.4
23.4
40.6
40.6
37.8
37.8
37.8
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.2
53.6
43.6
43.6
43.6
33.2
33.2
33.2
34.8
34.8
34.8
tests were run on coal that was dumped onto pile immediately before
equipment deployment.
Once the lowest center!ine velocity of the corresponding uncontrolled test
was reached, the search for a threshold velocity was abandoned. Hence,
lower bounds on the threshold velocity are given.
95
-------
TABLE 4-5. AERODYNAMIC PARTICLE SIZE DATA - WIND EROSION
Run
F-46
F-47
F-48
F-49
F-50
F-51
F-52
F-53
F-54
F-55
F-56
F-57
H-20
H-21
H-22
H-23
H-24
H-25
H-26
H-27
H-28
H-28A
H-29
H-30
H-30A
H-30B
H-31
H-31A
H-31B
, The values
Substrates
Mass median
diameter
(Mm)
90
> 100
> 100
30
> 100
> 100
> 100
> 100
9.0
71
16
27
> 100
> 100'
> 100
93
> 100
> 100
> 100
> 100
I > 100
, > 100
)
b
J
> 100
are based on
became wet,
i
% < 50 pm
41
20
13
60
25
22
1.2
9.5
85
64
71
60
32
16
19
37
11
11
5.2
8.0
I 14
} 16
b
»
6.1
J
a large log-normal
invalidating data.
%. -| r-
< 15 pin
24
11
6.5
36
14
11
0.60
5.0
62
24
48
40
15
7.5
9.5
18
4.9
3.3
1.7
3.5
I 6.4
v 8.2
\
b
)
1.9
I
extrapolation of measured
% < 5 HI"
13
5.5
3.5
18
7.0
5.5
0.32
1.6
37
12
28
24
6.0
3.3
4.5
7.0
2.2
0.90
0.45
0.76
I"
, 4.0
)
b
)
)
> 0.53
1
data.
% < 2.5 pin
8.0
3.5
2.2
11
4.5
3.4
0.21
0.80
23
7.0
17
16
4.0
1.9
2.5
3.8
1.3
0.32
0.20
0.85
} 1'4
v 2.5
\
b
)
0.22
-------
Table 4-6 presents data on the surface properties which are believed
to have a significant effect on emission rate. Table 4-7 summarizes the
wind erosion test results.
4.5.2 Control Efficiencies
As discussed earlier, the efficiency of control measures applied to coal
storage piles are based on either erosion potentials or on emission rates.
The erosion potentials found in this study are presented in Table 4-8. Note
that a lower bound is given for the IP erosion potential for uncontrolled
steam coal. This is due to the fact that the measured emission rate for
F-53 did not decrease from that of run F-52. In this case, an erosion poten-
tial cannot be determined.
Combined emission rates for Cambria coal are given in Table 4-9. These
are based on an erosion time of 20 min. A control efficiency determined
from the ratio of emission rates is based on the assumption that, after a
suitably long erosion time, the total mass lost approximates the erosion
potential. In this case, the ratio of emission rates approximates the
ratio of erosion potentials.
In order to substantiate this approach, the total mass lost during
Runs H-23 and H-24 was compared to the erosion potential found using these
runs. The results are presented below:
Mass lost during H-23 and H-24
Size range -r erosion potential
TP 0.783
IP 1.00
FP 0.969
From these values, one may see that 20 min of erosion can quite ade-
quately approximate the erosion potential. This is especially true for in-
halable and fine particulate emissions. For total particulate emissions,
the approximation is not as good; however, there is the complicating effect
of creeping motion. Twenty minutes is a long enough time for large particles
to roll along the surface until they finally enter the tail section of the
wind tunnel. These particles are, of course, not airborne. Therefore, it
is believed that the mass eroded after 20 min also approximates the erosion
potential for TP.
Analysis of Runs H-23 and H-24 proves that the erosion potential was
approximated at 10.7 m/s center!ine speed (24 mph). It is reasonable to
assume that this approximation improves as the wind speed is increased.
Therefore, one can conclude that the other wind erosion tests conducted in
this study also adequately approximated the erosion potentials since they
all occurred at a center! ine wind speed greater than 10.7 m/s (24 mph).
97
-------
TABLE 4-6. PROPERTIES OF SURFACES TESTED
to
00
. .
Run3
F-46
F-47
F-48
F-49
F-50
F-51
F-52
F-53
F-54
F-55
F-56
F-57
H-20
H-21
H-22
11-23
H-24
H-25
H-26
H-27
H-28
H-28A
H-29
H-30
H-30A
H-30B
H-31
H-31A
H-31B
Surface
Type
Exposed area
Exposed area
Exposed area
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Control
measure
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Coherex®
Coherex®
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Site
H-l
H-2
H-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
E-l
E-l
£-1
E-2
E-2
E-2
E-2
W-l
W-2
W-2
W-2
W-3
W-3
W-3
W-4
W-4
W-4
Before
Sill
5.50
8.26
-
4.25
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.02
-
-
-
-
6.5
-
-
-
4.0
2.8
-
-
5.3
-
-
4.6
-
erosion
Moisture
(%)
5.56
2.51
-
2.70
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.60
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
h
3-°h
3.5b
-
-
5.6
-
-
6.8
-
After
Silt
(*)
5.62
-
8.11
-
-
-
-
3.77
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.1
-
-
-
5.6
4.4
-
-
4.5
-
-
-
-
-
4.0
erosion
Moisture
(X)
3.75
-
3.26
-
-
-
-
1.99
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.4
-
-
-
8.1
4.9
-
-
5.9
-
-
-
-
h
5.2D
Average
Silt
(%)
5.6
8.2
8.2
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
-
-
3.0
3.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
5.3
5.3
5.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
erosion
Roisture
(X)
4.7
2.9
2.9
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
-
-
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.1
4.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.6
5.6
5.6
6.8
6.8
6.8
Roughness
height
(cm)
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.06
0.06
0.004
0.004
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.087
0.087
0.087
0. 087
0. 150
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
Runs with a letter suffix indicate that filters were not changed from the prior run in order to obtain
an acceptable sample on each substrate of the impactor.
The sample depth in the pan was too great to allow proper ventilation; thus these moisture values may
be too low.
-------
TABLE 4-7. WIND EROSION TEST RESULTS
Cross- sectional
average
velocity in
Run
F-46
F-47
F-48
F-49
F-50
F-51
F-52
F-53
F-54
F-55
F-56
F-57
H-20
H-21
11-22
11-23
11-24
H-25
11-26
H-27
H-28
II-28A
11-29
11-30
H-30A
H-30B
11-31
H-31A
H-31B
Material
Exposed area
Exposed area
Exposed area
Steam coal
Steam coal
Steam coal
Steam coal
Steam coat
Steam coal
Steam coal
Steam coal
Steam coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Coking coal
Condition
Inactive
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Undisturbed
Undisturbed
Compacted
Compacted
Compacted
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Compacted
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Turned
Control
measure
None
Hone
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Coberex®
Cone rex©
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Latex
Latex
Latex
latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
latex
Latex
test
(m/s)
10.7
8.41
11.7
6.09
8.38
8.38
11.2
11.2
5.52
8.31
12.0
12.0
9.68
12.6
13.0
8.32
8.47
11.2
13.2
12.0
8.63
11.0
13.4
8.99
11.6
14.0
8.89
11.5
13.6
section
(mpli)
24.0
18 8
26.1
13.6
18.8
18.8
25.2
25.2
12.3
18.6
26.9
26.9
21.6
28.1
29.0
18.6
19.0
24.9
29.5
26.9
19.3
24.7
30.0
20.1
25.9
31.2
19.9
25.6
30.5
Friction
velocity
(m/s)
0.878
0.757
1.05
0.792
1.09
1.09
1.46
1.46
0.514
0.775
0.727
0.727
1.05
1.36
1.41
0.837
0.852
1.12
1.33
1.25
0.780
1.00
1.21
0.462
0.595
0.716
0.554
0.713
0.853
Cumulative
erosion
time
(min)
30
10
13
20
30
70
85
145
20
50
60
120
20
40
60
2
20
40
60
20
20
40
60
20
40
60
20
40
60
jmg/raVs)
0.0843
39.1
288
0.215
3.65
5.14
9.06
2.01
0.258
0.753
0.303
0.199
2.14
43.9
9.96
8.89
4.47
12.4
166
16.7
-
10.9
7.38
-
-
-
-
-
104
7F
(Ib/acre/s)
0.00075
0.348
2.57
0.00192
0.0325
0.0458
0.0808
0 0179
0.00230
0.00671
0.00270
0.00177
0.0191
0.391
0.0888
0.0792
0.0398
0.110
1.48
0.149
-
0.0972
0.0658
-
-
-
-
-
0.927
Net emission rate
IP
(mg/mVs)
.
5.19
17.0
0.0685
0.489
0.569
0.0543
0.0806
0.163
0.166
0.144
0.0739
0.265
3.42
0.911
1.51
0.113
0.285
2.64
0.391
-
0.567
0.424
-
-
-
-
-
1.65
(Tb/acre7s)
0.0463
0.152
0.000611
0.00436
0.00507
0. 000484
0.000718
0.00145
0.00148
0.00128
0.000659
0.00236
0.0305
0.00812
0.0135
0.00101
0.00254
0.0235
0.00348
-
0.00505
0.00378
-
-
-
-
-
0.0147
FP
(mg/mVs)
1.75
5.31
0.0238
0.163
0.179
0.0181
0.0161
0.0635
0.0516
0.0573
0.0370
0.125
1.01
0.303
0.308
0.0844
0.140
0.319
0.176
-
0.267
0.216
-
-
-
-
0.394
(Ib/acre/s)
0.0156
0.0473
0.000212
0.00145
0.00160
0.000161
0. 000144
0.000566
0.000460
0.000511
0.000330
0.00111
0.00900
0.00270
0.00274
0.000752
0.00125
0.00284
0.00157
-
0.00238
0.00192
-
-
-
-
-
0.00351
-------
From Tables 4-8 and 4-9, control efficiencies were determined and are
presented in Table 4-10. The efficiency of Coherex® in controlling IP emis-
sions from active steam coal is expressed in terms of a lower bound. This
was necessary because it was not possible to obtain an IP erosion potential,
as discussed earlier.
The two chemicals applied to active (or turned) coal surfaces appear to
be less effective in controlling emissions in the smaller size ranges. In
the case of compacted Cambria coking coal, the control efficiency of the
latex binder was fairly constant over the size ranges considered.
Figure 4-5 shows the decay in control efficiency that was observed
for the latex binder. The TP control efficiency was reduced approximately
in half from the second to the fourth day, while the IP control efficiency
dropped roughly one-third. Note that the measured efficiency of control
for FP emissions showed an increase over the same period. However, these
values must be considered suspect because of light loadings on the impactor
substrates. Further tests must be performed in order to adequately charac-
terize the control efficiency for fine particulate emissions.
From the data presented in Table 4-10, it appears that the latex
binder is more effective in controlling emissions from the turned surface
as the wind speed increases. In the uncontrolled case, the TP and IP emis-
sion rate increased approximately 1000% and 500%, respectively, when the
tunnel center!ine wind speed was raised from 14.4 m/s (32.2 mph) to 17.2 m/s
(38.5 mph). The corresponding increases for the controlled surface .were
70% and 80%, respectively. Thus the measured control efficiencies for TP
and IP were substantially higher for the greater wind speed. The FP control
efficiency also shows this trend, but this result should also be considered
suspect in light of the discussion above.
100
-------
TABLE 4-8. EROSION POTENTIALS FOR COAL
o
Type
Steam Coal
Steam Coal
Coking (lo-vol)
Condition
Active
Undisturbed
Turned
Control
measure
None
Coherex®
None
(m/s)
15.0
15.0
11.0
Center! ine
wind speed
(mph)
33.5
33.5
24.6
Erosion
TP
30.6
3.18
7.53
potential
IP
> 2.08
0.788
0.303
(9/m2)
FP
0.908
0.343
0.135
coal
-------
TABLE 4-9. TWENTY-MINUTE EMISSION RATES FOR CAMBRIA COKING COAL
(m/s)
11
14
o 17
Center! ine
wind speed
(mph)
25
32
38
TP
4.91
17.3
183
Runs H-23 - 26
IP
0.253
0.538
3.18
Net emission
FP
0.107
0.247
0.566
rate frog/
TP
-
10.9
18.3
mVs)
Runs H-28 - 29
IP
-
0.567
0.991
— ^ , _,
FP
-
0.267
0.483
-------
TABLE 4-10. CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR WIND EROSION OF COAL STORAGE PILES
o
CJ
Control
Measure
Coherex®
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Time after
Surface application
Condition (days)
Undisturbed ~ 60
Compacted 2
Turned 2
Turned 2
Turned 4
Time after
rainfall
(days)
4
2
2
2
4d
Centerline
wind Control .
speed efficiency (%)
(m/s) TP IP FP
15.0 89.6 > 62.1 62.2
17.2 70.2 91,5 87.8
14.3 37.0 c c
17.2 90.0 68.8 14.7
17.1 43.2 48.1 30.4
0.1 inch or more.
Control efficiencies for the latex binder are based on 20-min erosion rates.
on erosion potentials.
C
No reduction in emissions observed.
The test sites at plant H were protected from rainfall by plastic covers.
Those for Coherex® are based
-------
Conlrol Efficiency (%)
00
o
c
ft)
I
en
D O
o
re
BJ n
-o CD
-o "<
fD 3
Q.
O
«-t- O
O 3
rt
n -5
O O
Q) —<
O ->•
-5 O
BJ _i.
IQ fD
fD 3
n
-o <<
—- o
fD ~t>
tn
fD
X
3
Q.
fD
D Q 00 —I
D 1- TO C
o _ n; 3
D O
n
a
CO
CD
-o
3-
"ir
o'
3
L
O D
-------
5.0 OPEN DUST CONTROL DESIGN, OPERATION AND COST PARAMETERS
A limited amount of design/operation and cost data were collected from
the three plants at which testing was performed during this study. The ques-
tionnaires shown in Appendix B were completed by personnel representing
Armco-Middletown, Armco-Houston, and Bethlehem-Burns Harbor. Since the di-
stinction between design and operational data is difficult to verify from a
questionnaire, these data will simply be designated as design/operation
data. Also shown on the questionnaire were cost data.
This section contains the results of the questionnaire as well as a
theoretical treatment of fugitive dust control cost-effectiveness analysis.
5.1 DESIGN/OPERATION PARAMETERS
The most important design/operation parameters are application inten-
sity, frequency and dilution ratio, if applicable. These variables, as
determined from the questionnaire, are summarized in Tables 5-1 through
5-4. Many miscellaneous characteristics of the control system are presented
in Appendix C.
5.2 COST PARAMETERS
Costs associated with purchase, installation, operation, and mainte-
nance should all be quantified in order to evaluate the cost-effectiveness
of a given open dust control technique. These costs, as determined
from the questionnaire, are shown in Table 5-5. To facilitate compari-
sons between control techniques, the cost data in Table 5-5 were placed on a
dollar per unit of treated source extent and on a dollar per unit of actual
source extent in Tables 5-6 and 5-7, respectively.
5.3 THEORETICAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
The most informative method for comparing cost data is on a cost-effec-
tiveness basis. Cost-effectiveness in air pollution control is defined as
dollars expended per mass of emissions reduced:
- D
where: CE = cost-effectiveness ($/lb of emissions reduced)
D = control technique cost ($/year)
ER = emissions reduction (pound of emissions reduced/year)
105
-------
TABLE 5-1. DESIGN/OPERATION PARAMETERS - PAVED ROADS
Plant
Control
Application
intensity
Application
frequency
Middletown Works
Houston Works
Vacuum sweeper
or
Plusher
Broom sweeper
and
Plusher
12,000 cfm vacuum
blower capacity
1,800 gal/mile at
50 psig
NA
0.48 gal/yd2 under
unknown pump
pressure
Once per 2 or 3 days
Once per 2 or 3 days
Once per 3 days
Once per 3 days
TABLE 5-2. DESIGN/OPERATION PARAMETERS - UNPAVED ROADS
Plant
Control
Application
intensity
Dilution ratio
chemical: water
Application
frequency
Middletown Works Coherex®
Houston Works
0.19 gal/yd2
(initial ap-
plication)
0.28 gal/yd2
(remaining ap-
plications)
Watering 0.48 gal/yd2
1:5
1:8
Once every 2 days
to
Once every 6 weeks
Once every 3 days
106
-------
TABLE 5-3. DESIGN/OPERATION PARAMETERS - UNPAVED PARKING LOTS AND EXPOSED AREAS
Plant
Control
Application
intensity
Dilution ratio
chemical: water
Application
frequency
Middletown Works Coherex®
910 gal/acre
(initial ap-
plication)
1,364 gal/acre
(remaining ap-
plications)
1:5
1:8
2 or 3 times/year
107
-------
TABLE 5-4. DESIGN/OPERATION PARAMETERS—STORAGE PILES
Plant Control
Middletown Watering
Works
Houston Watering
Works
__j
o
CD
Material
Coal
Limestone
Taconite
Coal (main pile)
Coal (surge pile)
Application
intensity
0.8 gal /yd*
N/A
N/A
1.4 gal /yd2
1.4 gal /yd2
Dilution
ratio Application
chemical : water frequency
Once every 2 days
N/A
N/A
300 days/yr
(when rainfall < 1/4
300 days/yr
(when rainfal 1 < 1/4
in
in
Burns Harbor Latex
Coal
1.5 gal/yd2
1:35
Once per week
-------
TABLE 5-5. SUMMARY OF OPEN DUST CONTROL COST DATA
Plant
Middle town
Works
Houston
Works
Burns
Harbor
Source
Paved roads
Unpaved roads
Coal storage piles
Limestone and taconite
piles
Unpaved parking lots
and exposed areas
Paved roads
Unpaved roads
Main coal piles
Surge coal pile
Lo-vol coal pile
Control
2 Vacuum sweepers
Flusher
Coherex, dis-
tributor truck
and storage tanks
Stationary water
spray
Water truck
(1,500 gal. cap.)
Coherex, distribu-
tor truck
Broom sweeper
No. 1
Broom sweeper
No. 2
Flusher
Water truck
Stationary water
spray
Stationary water
spray
Latex binder
(sprayed by
Purchase and Estimated
installation Year of lifetime
cost ($) purchase (yrs)
144,000 1980
68,000 1976
100,000 1980
350,000 1980
J 33,000 | 1979
18,000 1978
20,000 1980
j 34,000 1978
217,000 1975
72,200 197b
58,100
(chemical only)
5
10
7
20
)'
5
5
7
20
20
-
1980
Operation and
maintenance
costs ($)
214,000
57,000
287,000
1,000
54,000
224,000
65,100
57,000
52,300
15,400
8,600
8,600
-
1980 Ireated
source extent
2,020 miles
5,080 miles
1,630 miles
1,650 acres
1,810 acres
NA
888 miles
888 miles
1,780 miles
448 miles
2,150 acres
110 acres
N/A
Actual
source extent
16.9 miles
7. I miles
9 acres
10 acres
NA
14.6 miles
4.3 miles
7.2 acres
0.4 acres
N/A
subcontractor)
-------
TABLE 5-6. OPEN DUST CONTROL COST COMPARISON IN DOLLARS PER UNIT
OF TREATED SOURCE EXTENT
— - ,
Plant
Middle town
Works
Houston
Works
Burns
Harbor
Source
Paved roads
Unpaved roads
Coal storage piles
Limestone and taconite
piles
Unpaved parking lots
and exposed areas
Paved roads
Unpaved roads
Main coal pi les
Surge coal pile
Lo-vol coal pile
Control
2 Vacuum sweepers
f lusher
Coherex, distributor
truck and storage
tanks
Stationary water
spray
Water truck
(1,500 gal. cap.)
Coherex
Broom sweeper
No. 1
Broom sweeper-
No. 2
n usher
Water truck
Stationary water
spray
Stationary water
spray
Latex Binder
1980 Annual ized
Unit of
treated
source extent
mile
mi Ic
mile
acre
acre
acre
mile
mile
mile
mile
acre
acre
acre
costs ($ per unit
Purchase and
instal lation
14.30
1.34
8.77
10.60
2.60
NA
4.05
4.50
2.13
2.49
5.07
32.70
N/A
of treated source
Operation
and
maintenance
106
117
176
0.61
29.8
NA
73
64
29
34
4
78
N/A
extent)
Total
120
118
185
11.2
31.1
NA
77.1
68.5
31.1
36.5
9.07
110
N/A
Not scaled to 1980 cost.
-------
TABLE 5-7. OPEN DUST CONTROL COST COMPARISON IN DOLLARS PER UNIT
OF ACTUAL SOURCE EXTENT
Plant
Micldletown
Works
lloustbn
Works
Burns
Harbor-
Source
Paved roads
Unpaved roads
Coal storage pi les
Limestone and taconite
pi les
Unpaved parking lots
and exposed areas
Paved roads
Unpaved roads
Main coal piles
Surge coal pile
Lo-vol coal pile
Control
2 Vacuum sweepers
F lusher
Coherex, distributor
truck and storage
tanks
Stationary water
spray
Water truck
(1,500 gal. cap. )
Coherex
Broom sweeper
No. 1
Broom sweeper
No. 2
Flusher
Water truck
Stationary water
spray
Stationary water
spray
Latex Binder
($ per yi
Unit of
actual
source extent
mi le
mile
mile
acre
acre
acre
mile
mile
mile
mile
acre
acre
acre
1980 Annual! zed costs
>ar per unit of actual source extent)
Purchase and
installation
1,700
400
2,000
1,940
470
NA
240
270
260
260
1,510
9,000
N/A
Operation
and
maintenance
12,700
3,370
40,400
110
5,400
NA
4,460
3,900
3,580
3,580
1,190
21,500
N/A
Total
14,400
3,770
42,400
2,050
5,870
NA
4,700
4,170
3,840
3,840
2,700
30,500
N/A
Not scaled to 1980 cost.
-------
Control technique cost includes several components shown graphically
in Figure 5-1. Purchase and installation costs must also include costs for
freight, tax and borrowed money. The operation and maintenance costs should
reflect increasing frequency of repair as the equipment ages along with in-
creased costs for parts, energy and labor. Costs recovered from tax laws
should also be considered. The slopes of the lines in Figure 5-1 have little
significance except to show an increasing or decreasing cost with time. The
slope of the loan interest tax deduction assumes the equipment was funded
by a loan to be repaid on an installment basis beginning at the time of the
loan. The equipment could have been funded by a bond program with bonds
maturing at a variety of times causing the interest paid to increase, remain
level, or decrease with time in a continuous or step fashion.
Cost-effectiveness also includes the emissions reduction achieved. Re-
sults from this study support the logical conclusion that the emissions re-
duction of a specific control technique decays with time until the technique
finally yields no reduction over the uncontrolled state. This can be de-
fined as the life of the control technique, not to be confused with the life-
time of the equipment.
The remaining portion of this section presents a simplified mathematical
model for comparing the costs of one control technique with another. The
question being asked determines the basis on which the cost should be com-
pared. The following list presents six questions which can be asked:
1. Given a specific source at a specific plant and given a specific
control technique, what is the most cost-effective number of ap-
plications that should be made?
2. Given a specific source at a specific plant and given a specific
control technique, what is the cost to achieve a given emission
reduction?
3. Given a specific source at a specific plant, what is the most
cost-effective control technique that can be used?
4. Given a specific source at a specific plant, what is the least
expensive control technique that can be used to achieve a given
emission reduction?
5. Given a specific plant, what is the most cost-effective source
that can be controlled?
6. Given a specific plant, what is the least expensive source which
can be controlled to achieve a given emission reduction?
5.3.1 Cost-effectiveness Optimization Analysis
The answers to questions 1, 3 and 5 require an optimization analysis.
The following simplified mathematical model can be used to answer questions
1, 3 and 5.
112
-------
o
u
LLI
O
u
z
Equipment, Installation, Freight, Tax, and Interest
Depreciation Tax Deduction
LIFE OF EQUIPMENT
Scrap
Value
Figure 5-1. Graphical presentation of open dust control costs.
113
-------
As shown above, the cost-effectiveness of any given combination of con-
trol technique, equipment and implementation plan for a given source at a
given plant is:
« • V
where CE = cost-effectiveness ($/lb of emissions reduced)
D = control technique cost ($/yr)
ER = emissions reduction (Ib of emissions reduced/yr)
The control technique cost can be written as follows
0 = PI + MO
where PI = annual purchase and installation cost ($/yr)
MO = annual operating and maintenance cost ($/yr)
The annualized purchase and installation cost for a given device can be ex-
pressed
PI =
where IPT = total purchase and installation cost ($)
Y = estimated life of equipment (yr)
The annual operating cost can be expressed
MO = AMO x TSE
where AMO = maintenance and operating cost per unit of
treated source extent ($/unit of treated
source extent)
TSE = treated source extent per year (units of
treated source extent/yr)
The annual treated source extent is further dependent on the actual
amount of source extent in the plant and the number of treatments per year:
TSE = ASE x NT
where ASE = actual source extent in plant (units of source
extent)
NT = number of treatments per year (treatment/yr)
The intial purchase and .installation cost can also be dependent
on the treated source extent as follows
IPT = UPT x If
114
-------
where UPT = initial purchase and installation cost per
device ($/device)
MSE = maximum source extent which can be treated
per device per- year (units of treated source
extent/device/yr)
The generalized expression for control technique cost can now be written
as follows
D = + (AMO x ASE x NT)
All the parameters in the generalized expression for control technique
cost can be fixed for a given technique and plant with the exception of the
number of treatments per year which must be calculated. The lifetime of
the device is assumed a constant in this analysis. The validity of this
assumption is explored at the end of this analysis.
The number of treatments per year can be calculated if one knows the
functional form for the decay of control efficiency for a given technique
with time. The optimum number of treatments can then be calculated by mini
mizing the cost effectiveness for a given control technique.
Before minimizing the cost-effectiveness function, one first writes
the generalized expression for emissions reduction which appears in the de-
nominator of the cost effectiveness function. The emissions reduction can
be expressed as follows
ER(t) = CEF(t) x EF x SE
where ER(t) = instantaneous emissions reduction as a
function of time (Ib/yr)
CEF(t) = control efficiency fraction as a function
of days after application
EF = emission factor (Ib/unit of source extent)
SE = source extent (units of source extent/yr)
i
The emission reduction can further be defined as
365/NT
115
-------
The cost-effectiveness function can now be minimized and the op-
timum number of applications per year calculated. It is obvious that if
just emission reduction were to be maximized, an infinite number of treat-
ments would be required. If just cost were to be minimized, then zero
treatments per year would be required.
The minimization of CE which requires the optimum concentration
of both cost and emission reduction can then be determined assuming
d (CE) _ o
d (NT) u
Before the actual calculations to minimize CE can occur, the form of the
control efficiency decay function must be determined. The following analyses
consider 3 different forms of the control efficiency decay function: (1)
linear decay (2) exponential decay, and (3) exponential followed by linear
decay.
If it is assumed that the control efficiency fraction decays linearly
from 1.0, then
CEF(t) = -bt
and
365/NT
en _ EF x SE x NT i f ,. ,-,>, ,+
ER = o (-bt +1) dt
EF x SE x NT /-b /365\ 2 . 365
35B\ 2 \~NT/ N
= EFxSE (l-^ ^65)
The cost-effectiveness function can then be written
A (NT)
CE =
EF x SE /1-b 365\
2 "NT/
where A = UyTxx^gE + (AMD x ASE)
The value of NT which yields the minimum cost-effectiveness function can be
derived as follows:
EF x SE/l-b 365\A - A(NT)(EF)(SE)b 365
d (CE) _ n = \ I "NT/ __ 1
-
116
-------
Solving for NT yields
b 365
A x EF x SE % Z£ = EF x SE ti - 3 -^
b 365 _ , b 365
2 ""NT ' l ~ 2 "NT
365 _ ,
NT = b 365
Then the minimum cost-effectiveness function is
PP _ A 365 b
-min " EF x SE /I - b 365 \
1 /
CE _ 365 A x b
min \ x EF x SE
One interesting conclusion is that the most cost-effective approach will
yield only a 50% reduction in emissions over the uncontrolled state. Another
interesting conclusion is that the cost-effectiveness is minimized when the
control technique efficiency is allowed to decay to zero. In order to prove
this, define the lifetime of the technique (LT) as the time at which CEF = 0.
Then one may write
0 = -b (LT) + 1
LT = \ (days)
But the optimum time betewen applications is 365/NT = 1/b. Thus the opti-
mum time between applications is the lifetime of the control technique and
the optimum number of applications can be expressed
NTopt = 365/LT
It is now assumed that the control efficiency decays exponentially
from 1:
CEF(t) = e ~bt
117
-------
The emissions reduced can be expressed as
PR - EF x SE x NT 365/NTp -bt ,,
cK ~ - 365 - / e dt
0
" 365/NT
SE x NT / 1 exp (-bt)
365 \ b
o
x SE x NT ( -1 exp (-b365/NT) + 1
365 ^ b b~
The cost effectiveness function can then be written
A x NT x 365
The value of NT which yields the miminum cost-effectiveness function can
then be derived as follows
d (CE) _ Q _ A x EF x SE x NT / 1 avn b365
TTFTT ~u jm \ E exp " irr
+ E
- A x NT EF,X_SE ( - 1 NT ("b)_365 e ~b 365/NT 1 a ~b 365/NT .
n A 11 I -jet; I K N I _ KlT2 e ~ E
x SE x NT /_ 1 „„_ /-b 365\ , 1
365
Solving for NT yields
A x NT x EF x SE / 1 / 1
(4"P(^77T
1(1 \ - b 365/NT , 1 \ _ A x EF x SE x NT
b\fiTxbx365 + lJe EJ -- 3S5 - x
' b/365 1
+ E
b x 365 e -b 365/NT = 0
exp (-b 365/NT) = 0
Since NT = «, there is no finite value of NT which yields a solution to
this equation. This is because the control efficiency, when expressed as an
exponential decay, never goes to zero. To put it another way, the control
technique has an infinite lifetime. In order to circumvent this physical
implausibility, assume that at some point in time called d, the functional
118
-------
form of the decay changes to a straight line function with a slope equal to
the slope of exponential decay function at t = d. The straight line function
must also pass through (0, LT). The slope of the exponential decay function
at time d is:
c = -be'bd
The straight line function can then be defined as
CEF(t) = -be"bdt + f
Therefore , ,
f = be"bd (LT)
Consequently,
CEF(t) = -be"bd (t - LT)
Since the values of the CEF for both functions are identical at d, one may
solve for d
e-W = -be-bd (d . LT)
d = LT-i
Thus
CEF(t) = -be-b + l t + be'b(LT) + l (LT)
Therefore both functions comprising the decay function are defined when the
decay constant, b, and the life of the control technique, LT, are known.
For simplicity in the following solution, the following definitions will be
used:
d = LT-1
The equation for the emission reduction can then be written
ER = EF xE x NT ;d e-btdt + j-365/NT (. ct + f) ^
x SE x NT 1 -bd ,1 c /365\2 . cd2 . . 365 f ,
- ' F e + b " 2 hnv + 1 + f -FT ' fd
119
-------
The cost-effectiveness function can now be written
CE =
A (NT)
EF x SE x NT / 1 -bd . 1 c /365 \ * cd* . - 365
355 \"be + b~2
The value of NT which minimizes the cost-effectiveness function can then be
calculated as follows
or
365 _ _ 3652
Iff2 ~ c "NT3
Therefore
Substitution of the definitions of c and f yields
, al - b(LT)
- b e
NT
opt 1 - b(LT)
b LT e
KIT - 365
NTopt - TT
The minimum value of the cost-effectiveness for the case where the control
efficiency decays first in an exponential and then in a linear fashion can
be expressed as follows
A
LI
365\
EF x SE x - . + 1 - I e1 '
365
+ b .1 - b(LT) LT 1 % b(LT) .1 - bCLT)
- b(LT) e1 - (LT - )
120
-------
This reduces to
A x b x 365
CE
min EF x SE (1 - 1/2 exp (1 - b(LT)))
From these analyses one can see that, in all three cases, the cost-effec-
tiveness function is minimized when the control efficiency of the water or
chemical is allowed to decay to zero. This is easily understood when one
considers that a fixed amount of money is expended for each application of
water or chemical dust suppressant. The most cost-effective approach is to
gain all the emission reduction possible for this fixed expenditure. The
maximum aggregate emission reduction occurs when the lifetime of the tech-
nique is reached. In other words, when the control efficiency equals zero,
the maximum emission reduction has been gained and no further emission reduc-
tion will occur.
While the cost-effectiveness function is minimal at the lifetime of
the control technique in all three cases, this does not mean that the value
of the minimum cost-effectiveness function is identical in all three cases.
Indeed, this value depends on all the costs related to the equipment, the
slope or decay constant for the control efficiency function, the form of
the control efficiency decay function, and the emissions from the source in
the uncontrolled state. Consequently, while the user of these equations
knows the most cost-effective number of applications to make for a given
control, he should still use the appropriate equation for minimum cost-effec-
tiveness to determine which combination of technique and equipment will yield
the lowest minimum cost-effectiveness.
A second level of complexity can be introduced to this analysis by as-
suming that there are some fixed costs which are not dependent on the number
of applications. In this case, the cost function can be written
D = B (NT) + g
where
g = fixed cost which are not dependent on the number of
applications ($/yr)
This may occur, for example, when the equipment is already purchased and
installed without regard for the optimum number of applications necessary.
For this case, g equals the purchase and installation cost while B equals
only the operating and maintenance cost. The cost-effectiveness function
in this case can also be minimized but the minimum value will not be as low
as the case where the size and number of the devices were also optimized.
It should be pointed out, however, that one never need purchase equip-
ment without optimization in mind. Given the lifetime of a control technique,
one can calculate the number of applications per year. Given the number of
applications, one can calculate the total treated source extent per year (TSE).
Then one can calculate the number of devices of given size that need to be
purchased by dividing TSE by MSE (the maximum source extent that can be treated
per device per year).
121
-------
The life of the equipment Y can be calculated using the following
equation
v _ SEL x (TSE/MSE) _ SEL
T ~ TSE " MSE
where SEL = source extent which can be treated over the lifetime of
the device (units of source extent per device).
The term TSE/MSE represents the number of devices needed assuming full utili
zation. From the above equation, one can see that at full utilization, the
lifetime of each device is a constant. Since this was the assumption in
all the previous analyses, the previous calculations are applicable to the
case of maximum utilization.
Substituting the above expression for the lifetime of the equipment
into the previous expression for annual cost yields
D = UPT *£fSE x NT + (AMD x ASE x NT)
For the case where one or more devices are desired at a utilization, e,
which is less than 100%, the lifetime of the devices can be calculated as
v - SEL x (TSE/(e x MSE)) _ SEL _
T ~ TSE e x MSE
Again the lifetime of the devices is a constant and the previous analyses
apply. The expression for the annual cost for this case is
UPT SE X NT + AMO x ASE x NT
One can see that the annual cost is identical whether or not maximum utili-
zation occurs. At less than maximum utilization, more devices are required
but each one lasts longer, thus yielding the same annual cost.
Finally, consider a limiting case in which one device can accomplish
the job at less than maximum utilization. The lifetime of this single device
can be calculated as follows:
Y = SEL x (TSE/(e x MSE))
TSE
However, it is known that in this case
TSE = e x MSE
Therefore
v - SEL
Y -TSE •
122
-------
Substituting this expression in the equation for annual cost yields
D = U"T "* X "SE" * AMD x ASE x NT
which reduces to
D = UPT *SE x NT + AMD x ASE x NT
Again, this is the same expression for annual cost as when several devices
were selected at maximum and less than maximum utilization. Assuming that
all three of these options were applied to the same job (TSE = constant),
we can see that in the first two cases, the annual cost would be identical,
but in the third case, the single device would have to be larger or faster
in order to accomplish the same job for which many devices were required.
This implies that UPT, SEL, and AMD would probably differ. Using the mini-
mum cost-effectiveness equation for a linear decay in control efficiency,
one can see that for control of a given source at a given plant, cost is
minimized when the value of (UPT/SEL) + AMD is a minimum. Cost-effective-
ness is minimized when the value of b(UPT/SEL + AMD) is a minimum.
In conclusion, the cost-effectiveness equations developed in this sec-
tion can be used in analyzing costs for a single control technique and for
comparing costs of various alternative control techniques for a given plant
and source. The equations can also be used to compare the same control tech-
nique at two different plants. In the first case, the equations indicate
that cost should be compared on the basis of dollars per unit of source ex-
tent treated. In the second case, the cost should be compared on the basis
of dollars per actual unit of source extent in the plant. However, while
cost comparisons are informative, it is the cost-effectiveness values which
are most important in terms of decisions about which open dust control tech-
nique is best.
5.3.2 Minimum Cost Calculations
The answer to questions 2, 4 and 6 listed in Section 5.3 do not require
an optimization analysis, but rather require only a simple calculation.
The following analysis shows how to determine the least expensive control
technique to achieve a given emission reduction from a given source.
The cost-effectiveness function for control of open dust emissions from
a given source at a given plant is:
TF - D
CE ~ ER
where: ER = fixed value of desired emission reduction (T/yr).
123
-------
From previous analyses, the cost per year can be expressed:
n - UPT x ASE x NT ^ ,...,, .cc ..,.
D - Y x MSE - (AM x ASE x NT)
Since the emission reduction is fixed in this particular problem, the
number of applications necessary to achieve that reduction can be calculated
from the following equation:
ER = EF x SE x
hK hh x bt x
365/NT
dt
365/NT
For the case where the control efficiency fraction decays linearly from
1.0, the emission reduction is:
ER = EF x SE x (1 -
The number of applications per year necessary to achieve a given reduc
tion can then be expressed:
NT , x 365 x (1 -
Then the expression for the dollars expended per year is:
D = UTX£ + (AMO X ASE) x x 365 x (1 -
Thus, for all control techniques with a linear decay in control effi-
ciency, the cost to achieve a given emission reduction can be calculated
for each control technique using the above equation. The most cost-effective
technique is then the one with the lowest total annual cost (D).
124
-------
SECTION 3m £ . O
REFERENCES
1. Bonn, R., T. Cuscino, Jr., and C. Cowherd, Jr. Fugitive Emissions from
Integrated Iron and Steel Plants. EPA-600/2-78-050, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1978.
276 pp.
2. Cowherd, Chatten, Jr., Russel Bohn, and Thomas Cuscino, Jr. Iron and
Steel Plant Open Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation. EPA-600/2-79-
103, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, May 1979. 139 pp.
3. Cowherd, C. , Jr., C. M. Maxwell, and D. W. Nelson. Quantification of
Dust Entrainment from Paved Roads. EPA-450/3-77-027, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1977.
89 pp.
4. Cowherd, C. , Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther (Maxwell), and G.
Jutze. Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources.
EPA-450/3-74-037, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, June 1974. 190 pp.
5. Cuscino, T., Jr. Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study. Final
Report, Midwest Research Institute for Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, June 7, 1979.
6. Bohn, R, T. Cuscino, Jr., D. Lane, F. Pendleton, and R. Hackney. Dust
Control for Haul Roads. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
February 1981.
7. Gillette, D. Tests with a Portable Wind Tunnel for Determining Wind
Erosion Threshold Velocities. Atmospheric Environment, 12:2309 (1978).
8. Soo, S. L., J. C. Perez, and S. Rezakhany. Wind Velocity Distribution
Over Storage Piles and Use of Barriers. Proceedings: Symposium on
Iron and Steel Pollution Abatement Technology for 1980 (Philadelphia",
Nov~, 1980), EPA-60Q/9-81-Q17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1981.
9. Davies, C. N. The Entry of Aerosols in Sampling Heads and Tubes.
British Journal of Applied Physics, 2:921 (1968).
i -X
-------
SECTION
GLOSSARY
Activity Factor - Measure of the intensity of aggregate material disturbance
by mechanical forces in relation to reference activity level defined as
unity.
Application Frequency - Number of applications of a control measure to a
specific source per unit time; equivalently, the inverse of time be-
tween two applications.
Application Intensity - Volume of water or chemical solution applied per
unit area of the treated surface.
Control Efficiency - Percent decrease in controlled emissions from the un-
controlled state.
Cost-Effectiveness - The cost of control per unit mass of reduced particu-
late emissions.
Dilution Ratio - Ratio of the number of parts of chemical to the number of
parts of solution, expressed in percent (e.g., one part of chemical to
four parts of water corresponds to a 20% solution).
Dry Day - Day without measurable (0.01 in. or more) precipitation.
Dry Sieving - The sieving of oven-dried aggregate by passing it through a
series of screens of descending opening size.
Duration of Storage - The average time that a unit of aggregate material
remains in open storage, or the average pile turnover time.
Dust Suppressant - Water or chemical solution which, when applied to an
aggregate material, binds suspendable particulate to larger particles.
Erosion Potential - Total quantity of erodible particles, in any size range,
present on the surface (per unit area) prior to the onset of erosion.
Exposed Area, Effective - The total exposed area reduced by an amount which
reflects the sheltering effect of buildings and other objects that re-
tard the wind.
Exposed Area, Total - Outdoor ground area subject to the action of wind and
protected by little or no vegetation.
1-28-
-------
Exposure - The point value of the flux (mass/area-time) of airborne particu-
late passing through the atmosphere, integrated over the time of mea-
surement.
Exposure, Integrated - The result of mathematical integration of spatially
distributed measurements of airborne particulate exposure downwind of
a fugitive emissions source.
Exposure Profiling - Direct measurement of the total passage of airborne
particulate immediately downwind of the source by means of simultaneous
multipoint isokinetic sampling over the effective cross-section of the
emissions plume.
Exposure Sampler - Directional particulate sampler with settling chamber and
backup filter, having variable flow control to provide for isokinetic
sampling at wind speeds of 1.8 to 8.9 m/s (4 to 20 mph).
Friction Velocity - A measure of wind shear stress on an exposed surface as
determined from the slope of the logarithmic velocity profile near the
surface.
Fugitive Emissions - Emissions not originating from a stack, duct, or flue.
Load-in - The addition of material to a storage pile.
Load-out - The removal of material from a storage pile.
Materials Handling - The receiving and transport of raw, intermediate and
waste materials, including barge/rail car unloading, conveyor transport
and associated conveyor transfer and screening stations.
Moisture Content - The mass portion of an aggregate sample consisting of un-
bound moisture as determined from weight loss in oven drying.
Normalization - Procedure that ensures that emission reductions not attri-
butable to a control measure are excluded in determining an efficiency
of control.
Particle Diameter, Aerodynamic - The diameter of a hypothetical sphere of
unit density (1 g/cm3) having the same terminal settling velocity as
the particle in question, regardless of its geometric size, shape and
true density.
Particle Drift Distance - Horizontal distance from point of particle injec-
tion into the atmosphere to point of removal by contact with the ground
surface.
Particulate, Fine - Airborne particulate smaller than 2.5 urn in aerodynamic
diameter.
Particulate, Inhalable - Airborne particulate smaller than 15 urn in aerody-
namic diameter.
-------
Participate, Total - All airborne participate regardless of particle size.
Particulate, Total Suspended - Airborne particulate matter as measured by a
standard high-volume (hi-vol) sampler.
Precipitation-Evaporation Index - A climatic factor equal to 10 times the
sum of 12 consecutive monthly ratios of precipitation in inches over
evaporation in inches, which is used as a measure of the annual aver-
age moisture of exposed material on a flat surface of compacted ag-
gregate.
Precision Factor (two standard deviations) - The precision factor (f) for
an emission factor equation is defined such that the 95% confidence
interval for a predicted emission factor value (P) extends from P/f
to Pf; the precision factor is determined by exponentiating twice the
standard deviation of the differences between the natural logarithms
of the predicted and observed emission factors.
Road, Paved - A roadway constructed of rigid surface materials, such as
asphalt, cement, concrete, and brick.
Road, Unpaved - A roadway constructed of nonrigid surface materials such
as dirt, gravel (crushed stone or slag), and oil and chip surfaces.
Road Surface Dust Loading - The mass of loose surface dust on a paved road-
way, per length of roadway, as determined by dry vacuuming.
Road Surface Material - Loose material present on the surface of an unpaved
road.
Roughness Height - A measure of the roughness of an exposed surface or
storage pile as determined from the y-intercept of the logarithmic
velocity profile near the surface.
Silt Content - The mass portion of an aggregate sample smaller than 75 mi-
crometers in diameter as determined by dry sieving.
Source, Open Dust - Any source from which emissions are generated by the
forces of wind and machinery acting on exposed aggregate materials.
Spray System - A device for applying a liquid dust suppressant in the form
of droplets to an aggregate material for the purposes of controlling
the generation of dust.
Storage Pile Activities - Processes associated with aggregate storage piles,
specifically, load-in, vehicular traffic around storage piles, wind
erosion from storage piles, and load-out.
Surface Erodibility - Potential for wind erosion losses from an unsheltered
area, based on the percentage of erodible particles (smaller than 0.85 mm
in diameter) in the surface material.
333.
-------
Surface Stabilization - The formation of a resistive crust on an exposed ag-
gregate surface through the action of a dust suppressant, which sup-
presses the release of otherwise suspendable particles.
Vehicle, Heavy-Duty - A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle travelling weight
exceeding 30 tons.
Vehicle, Light-Duty - A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle travelling weight
of less than or equal to 3 tons.
Vehicle, Medium-Duty - A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle travelling weight
of greater than 3 tons, but less than 30 tons.
Windbreak - A natural or man-made object which reduces the ambient wind speed
in the immediate locality.
-------
SECTION a.o •
ENGLISH TO METRIC UNIT CONVERSION TABLE
English unit
gal /yd*
Ib/T
Ib/vehicle mile
Ib/acre yr
Ib
T
mph
mile
ft
acre
Multiplied by
4.53
0.500
0.282
112
0.454
0.907
0.447
1.61
0.305
0.00405
Metric unit
£/m2
kg/t
kg/vehicle km
kg/km2 year
kg
t
m/s
km
m
km2
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
DATA COMPILATION FROM MATERIALS HANDLING FLOW CHARTS
Tables A-l through A-10 summarize material handling operations for
raw and intermediate materials at the 10 surveyed plants. Table A-ll
summarizes slag handling operations at the 10 surveyed plants.
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. RAW AND INTERMEDIATE MATERIAL HANDLING AT THE ARMCO MIDDLETOWN PLANT IN 1978
Handling method and
Origination
Material mode
Coal Railcar unloading
by rotary dump
(1,123.000 ST)
Kailcar unloading
by bottom dump
(634,000 ST)
Coke Coke ovens
(1,460,000 ST)
Iron Ore Pellets (iailcar unloading
by rotary dump
(1,508,000 ST)
Unagglomerated Iron Railcar unloading
Ore ' by rotary dump
(14,000 ST)
I Limestone/Dolomite/ Railcar unloaded by
ro gravel bottom dump
Transfer
stations
1 transfer
station
(2.057,000 ST)
1 transfer
station
(1,007,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(1,508,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(14,000 ST)
Hone
Storage
load- in
Conveyor
stacker
(1,234,000 SF)
None
Clamshell
bucket
(1,508,000 SO
Clamshell
bucket
(14,000 SI)
Hone
Storage
Open storage
(1,234,000 SI)
None
Open storage
pile
(1.508,000 ST)
Open storage
pile
(14,000 ST)
None
amount of material handled
Storage
load-out
Bucket wheel
reclaimer
onto conveyor
(1,234,000 ST)
None
Clamshell
bucket to
conveyor
(1,508,000 ST)
Clamshell
bucket to
conveyor
(14,000 ST)
Hone
Transfer
stations
2 transfer
stations
(1.423,000 SO
1 transfer
station
(634,000 ST)
1 transfer
station
(after
screening)
2 transfer
stations
(1,357.000 SO
None
Hone
Screening
Screening
(2,057,000
Screening
(1,460,000
Screening
3 transfer
stations
(1,357,000
None
Hone
Crushing
ST)
Breaker and
1 1, mime r Mil)
(634,00(1 SI)
None
si)
and None
SO
None
Nune
to conveyor to
stock house bins
(228,000 ST)
Sinter
Sinter Input
(e.g., flux, iron
ore and coke fines)
Sinter plant 1 transfer
(566,000 ST) station
(566,000 ST)
Railcar unloading Hone
by bottom dump
(239,000 ST)
Undersized material
from screening
Conveyor
stacker
(17,000 ST)
Conveyor to
bins
(549,000 SI)
Clamshell
bucket
(48,000 SI)
(ruck dump
(298,000 SI)
Open storage
(17,000 ST)
Bins
(549,000 ST)
Open storage
pile
(346,000 ST)
Clamshell
bucket to
conveyor
(17,000 SI)
Bins to
conveyor
(549,000 SO
front end
loader to
conveyor
(346,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(566,000 SO
2 transfer
stations
(585,000 ST)
Screening and None
3 transfer
stations
(566,000 ST)
None
None
and crushing
(608,000 ST)
Truck
(346,000 ST)
-------
TABLE A-2. RAW AND INTERMEDIATE MATERIAL HANDLING AT THE ARMCO HOUSTON PLANT IN 1978a
Material
Coal
Coke
Iron Ore Pellets
Unagglomerated
Iron Ore
limestone/
Do loin He
Sinter, Nodules
and Briquettes
Sinter Input
(Flux, Iron Ore
and Coke Fines)
j- — i — , — --. — _
Ol iqinntlon
mode
Barge unloaded
by clamshell
(445,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded
by side dump
(100,000 ST)
-
Barge unloaded
by clamshell
(578,000 ST)
Barge unloaded
by clamshell
(18,300 ST)
Railcar unloaded
by bottom dump
(62,300 ST)
Sinter plant
(257,000 ST)
Barge unloaded
by clamshell
(119,000 ST)
Undersized mate-
rial from screen-
ing and crushing
(194,000 ST)
Transfer
stations
2 transfer-
stations
(445,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(100,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(578,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(18,300 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(62.300 ST)
None
2 transfer
stations
(313,000 ST)
llandlinq method and amount of material handled
Storage
load- in
Conveyor
stacker
(445,000 SI)
Conveyor
stacker
(100,000 ST)
Conveyor
stacker
(578,000 ST)
Conveyor
stacker
(18,300 ST)
Conveyor
stacker
(37,400 ST)
Conveyor
stacker
(257,000 ST)
Conveyor
stacker
(313,000 ST)
Storage
Open
storage
(445,000 SI)
Open
storage
(100,000 ST)
Open
storage
(578,000 ST)
Open
storage
(18,300 ST)
Open
storage
(37,400 ST)
Open
storage
(257,000 ST)
Open
storage
(313,000 ST)
Storage
load-out
Crane-clam-
shell bucket
transfer to
conveyor
(445,000 SI)
Crane-clam-
shell bucket
transfer to
conveyor
(100,000 ST)
Crane-clam-
shell bucket
transfer to
conveyor
(578,000 Sf)
Crane- clam-
she 11 bucket
transfer to
conveyor
(18,300 ST)
Crane-clam-
shell bucket
transfer to
conveyor
(37,400 ST)
Crane-clam-
shell bucket
transfer to
conveyor
(257,000 ST)
Bucket-wheel
reclaimer onto
underground
conveyor
(313,000 ST)
Transfer
stations
4 transfer
stations
(445,000 ST)
4 transfer
stations
(383,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(578,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(18,300 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(62,300 ST)
None
2 transfer
stations
(313,000 ST)
Screening
None
Screened - 94%
to coke ovens;
6% to sfnter plant
None
None
None
None
None
Coke plant was down most of 1978, so coal and coke data are listed for 1979.
-------
TABLE A-3. RAW AND INTERMEDIATE MATERIAL HANDLING AT THE INTERLAKE CHICAGO PLANT IN 1978
lldndl ing method and
Material
Coal
Coke
Iron Ore Pellets
Dolomite
Limes Lone
Sinter, Nodules
and Briquette
Sinter Input
(flux, Iron Ore
and Coke Fines)
Origination
mode
Truck unloaded
(26.000 ST)
Railcar unloaded
by rotary dump
(495,000 ST)
Coke ovens
(315.000 ST)
Ship unloaded by
clamshell
(1.203,000 ST)
Truck unloaded
at storage pile
(35,300 ST)
Ship unloaded by
clamshell
(123.000 ST)
Sinter Plant
(302,000 ST)
Truck unloaded
at storage pile
(398,000 ST)
Transfer
stations
9 transfer
stations
end i rig in
bin storage
(521,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(345,000 SI)
None
None
None
1 transfer
station
(302,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(199,000 ST)
Storage
load-in
liii. to
scraper to
open storage
pile
(495,000 SI)
Conveyor
stacker
(17,000 ST)
Same cl dins he 11
used to unload
ships
(1.203,000 SO
Same truck used
to deliver
material lo
plant
(35.300 ST)
Same clamshell
used to unload
ships
(123,000 ST)
None
Same truck used
to deliver mate-
rial to plant
(199,000 ST)
Conveyor stacker
(199,000 ST)
Storaqe
Open storage
pile
(505.000 ST)
Open storage
pile
(17,000 ST)
Open storage
pile
(1.203,000 ST)
Open storage
pile
(35,300 SI)
Open storage
pile
(123,000 ST)
None
Open storage
pile
(498,000 ST)
amount of material
Storage
load-out
Scraper
(521,000 SI)
Front-end
loader; dump
into conveyor
hopper/feeder
(17,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
underground
conveyor
(1,203.000 SO
Crane-clam-
shell bucket
transfer to
conveyor
(35.000 ST)
Crane- clam-
shell bucket
transfer to
conveyor
(123,000 ST)
None
Front- end
loader dump
into conveyor
(398,000 ST)
handled
Transfer
stations
21 transfer
stations
(521,000 ST)
2 transfer-
stations
(345,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(1,203,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(35.300 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(123,000 ST)
15 transfer
stations
(362,000 ST)
3 transfer
stations
(398,000 ST)
Screening
None
Screened - 90%
to coke oven; 10%
to sinter plant
(345.000 ST)
None
None
None
Screened - 82% to
blast furnace;
18% recycled
(272,000 ST)
None
-------
TABLE A-4. RAW AND INTERMEDIATE MATERIAL HANDLING AT THE BETHLEHEM STEEL BURNS HARBOR PLANT IN 1978C
Material
Coal
Coke (Produced
in Plant)
Coke (Purchased)
Iron Ore Pellets
Sinter
1 imes tone/Dolomite
Sinter Plant
(Slag fines)
Origination
mode
Rotary dump of rail-
car onto underground
conveyors
(2,046,000 ST)
Coke Ovens
(1,493,000 ST)
Barge
(338,000 SI)
Rotary dump of rail-
car
(167,000 ST)
Barge to
clamshell
(865,000 ST)
Barge to bucket-
ladder conveyor
(4,221,000 ST)
Sinter plant
(1,835,000 ST)
Barge (11,000 ST)
levy
(385,000 ST)
Handling^ method and amount of material
Transfer
stations
6 conveyor
transfer
stations
(2,046,000 ST)
Z conveyor
transfer
stations to
screening
station
(1,493,000 ST)
5 conveyor
transfer
stations
(505,000 SI)
6 conveyor
transfer
stations
(5,086,000 ST)
9 conveyor
transfer
stations
(1,835,000 ST)
5 conveyor
transfer
stations
(11,300 ST)
Hauled by truck
to material
haul ing stor-
age pile
(385,000 ST)
Storage
load- in
Stacker into
pile
(2,046,000 SI)
Truck to storage
pile
(98,000 ST)
Conveyor
(1,305,000 ST)
Coke breeze
hauled off-site
(18,000 SI)
Hut coke hauled
off-site
(72,000 ST)
Stacker into
pile
(505,000 ST)
Stacker into
pile
(5,086,000 ST)
Enclosed con-
veyor
(1,652,000 ST)
Stacker into
pile
(183,000 ST)
Stacker into
pile
(11,300 ST)
Dumped by truck
(385,000 ST)
Storage
Open storage pile
(2, 046,000' SI)
Open storage pile
(98.000 SI)
Conveyor
(1,305,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(505,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(5,086,000 ST)
Enclosed con-
veyor
(1,652,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(183.000 ST)
Open storage pile
(11,300 ST)
Open storage pile
(385,000 ST)
Storage
load- out
Bucket wheel
reclaimer
(2,046,000 ST)
Front-end load-
er to conveyor
(98,000 ST)
Conveyor
(1,305,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer
onto conveyor
(505,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer
to conveyor
(5,086,000 ST)
Enclosed con-
veyor
(1,652,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
conveyor
(183,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer
onto conveyor
(11,300 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor
(385,000 ST)
handled
Transfer
stations
2 Conveyor trans-
fer stations
(2,046,000 ST)
3 conveyor trans-
fer stations
(1,403.000 ST)
3 conveyor
stations
(505,000 ST)
3 conveyor
transfer
stations
(5,086,000 ST)
Enclosed con-
veyor
(1,652,000 ST)
3 conveyor trans-
fer stations
(183,000 ST)
3 conveyor trans-
fer stations
(11,300 ST)
3 conveyor trans-
fer stations
(385,000 ST)
Screening
Hone
Screening
(1,403,000
Screening
ST)
(505,000 ST)
Screening
(5,086,000
Screening
(1,835,000
None
None
ST)
ST)
-------
TABLE 4. (continued)
CTl
Handling method and amount of material
Material
Sinter Plant
(Slag fines)
(continued)
Sinter Plant Input
(Coke Breeze)
Sinter Plant Input
(Dolomite)
Sinter Plant Input
(Calcite)
Origination
mode
Sinter mix bedding
plant
(385.000 ST)
From outside vendor
(69,000 ST)
Barge
(291,000 SI)
Sinter mix bedding
surge bin
(291,000 ST)
Barge
(169,000 ST)
Sinter mix bedding
plant
(169,000 ST)
Transfer
stations
3 conveyor
transfer
stations
(385,000 ST)
Transport by
truck
(69.000 ST)
5 conveyor
transfer
stations
(291.000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(291,000 SI)
5 transfer
stations
(169.000 ST)
3 transfer
stations
(169,000 ST)
Storage
1 oad~ i n
Mobile or sta-
tionary stacker
into pile
(385,000 SI)
Transport by
truck
(1,380 ST)
Mobile or sta-
tionary stacker
into pile
(291,000 SI)
Enclosed con-
veyor
(291,000 ST)
Mobile or sta-
tionary stacker
pile
(169,000 ST)
Mobile or sta-
tionary stacker
onto pile
(169,000 SI)
Storage
Open storage pile
(385,000 SO
Transport by
truck
(1.380 ST)
Open storage pile
(291,000 ST)
Enclosed con-
veyor
(291,000 SI)
Open storage pile
(169,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(169.000 ST)
Storage
load-out
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor
(385,000 ST)
Dumped by
truck into
conveyor bin
(1,380 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor
(291,000 ST)
Enclosed con-
veyor
(291,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor
(169,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor
(169,000 ST)
handled
Transfer
stations
1 conveyor trans-
fer stations
(385,000 ST)
5 transfer sta-
tions
(69,000 ST)
3 transfer sta-
tions
Enclosed conveyor
(291,000 SI)
3 transfer sta-
tions
4 transfer sta-
(169,000 SI)
Screening
None
None
None
None
None
None
Sinter Plant Input
(Mill Scale)
Purchased by outside Transport by
vendor and generated truck
in plant by hot form- (267,000 SI)
ing and rolling oper-
ations
(267,000 ST)
Sinter mix bedding 3 transfer
plant surge bin stations
(267,000 ST) (267,000 ST)
Transport by
truck
(13,350 ST) Open storage pile
Truck dump onto (253,650 ST)
pile (253,650 Sf)
Transport by truck Dumped by Conveyor trans-
(13,350 ST) truck into con- fer station
veyor bin (267,000 ST)
(3.350 ST)
Front-end
loader dump into
conveyor bin
(253,650 ST)
Screening
(267,000 ST)
Mobile or sta-
tionary stacker
into pile
(267,000 SI)
Open storage pile
(267,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor1
(267,000 ST)
4 transfer
stations
(267,000 ST)
None
-------
TABLE 4. (concluded)
Material
Sinter Plant Input
(Purchased Iron Ore
Fines)
Sinter Plant Input
(Iron Ore and Sinter
Fines Generated at
Plant)
Sinter Plant Input
(Blast FCE. Flue
Oust/Filter Cake)
.
Origination
mode
Barge
(1,121,000 ST)
Sinter mix bedding
plant
(1,121,000 ST)
Blast furnace
stockhouses
(375,000 ST)
Sinter mix bedding
plant
(375,000 ST)
Blast FCE, gas
cleaning systems
(193,000 ST)
From stock pile
(193,000 ST)
Sinter mix bedding
plant
(193,000 ST)
transfer
stations
5 transfer
stations
(1,121,000 ST)
3 transfer
stations
(1.121,000 ST)
Conveyor
transfers
(375,000 ST)
3 transfer
stations
(375,000 ST)
Transport by
(193,000 ST)
Transport by
truck
(193,000 ST)
3 transfer
stations
O93.000 ST)
Handling method and
Storage
load- in
Mobile or sta-
tionary stacker
into pile
(1,121,000 ST)
Mobile or sta-
tionary slacker
into pi le
(1,121,000 ST)
Transport by
truck
(37,500 ST)
Truck dump
onto pile
(337,500 ST)
Mobile or sta-
tionary stacker
onto pile
(375,000 ST)
Dumped by truck
onto storage
pile
(193,000 ST)
Truck dump onto
pile
(193,000 ST)
Mobile or sta-
tionary stacker
onto pi le
(193,000 ST)
Storage
Open storage pile
(1,121,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(1,121,000 ST)
Transport by
truck
(37,500 ST)
Open storage pile
(337,500 ST)
Open storage pile
(375,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(193,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(193,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(193,000 ST)
amount of material
Storage
load-out
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor
(1,121,000 ST)
Ducket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor
(1,121,000 ST)
Dumped by
truck into
conveyor bin
(37,500 ST)
Front-end
loader; dump
into conveyor
bin
(337,500 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor
(375,000 ST)
Loaded into
truck with
front-end
loader
(193,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor
(193,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer onto
above-ground
conveyor
(193,000 ST)
handled
transfer
stations
3 transfer sta-
tions
(1,121,000 ST)
4 transfer
stations
(1,121,000 ST)
3 transfer
stations
(375,000 ST)
(375,000 ST)
4 transfer
stations
(375,000 ST)
Transport by
truck
(193,000 ST)
3 transfer
stations
(193,000 ST)
4 transfer
stations
Screening
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Due to coal strike in 1978 and the resultant nonrepresentaUve handling methods, these data are for 1979.
-------
TABLE A-5. RAW AND INTERMEDIATE MATERIAL HANDLING AT THE BETHLEHEM STEEL'S SPARROWS POINT PLANT IN 1978
Handling method and amount of material
Origination
Material mode
Coal Barge unloaded via
clamshell
(3,334.000 ST)
Coke Coke Ovens
(2.366.000 ST)
Vessels
(203,000 Sf)
Iron Ore Pellets Vessels
(3.253,000 ST)
Unaijglome rated Iron Barge unloaded via
Ore clamshell
(2,467,000 SO
-j-, Revert Material Sinter plant and
i screening operations
oo to trucks
(896.000 ST)
Gravel Iruck (85,800 SI)
Sinter Input Railcar unloaded
(Limestone as flux) via bottom dump
(651.000 ST)
Transfer
stations
5 transfer
stations
(3,334,000 ST)
6 transfer
stations
(82,000 ST)
5 transfer
stations
(3,253,000 ST)
5 transfer
(2,467,000 ST)
None
None
6 transfer
stations
Storage
load- in
Conveyor stacker
(3,334,000 SI)
Trucks to open
storage pi 4e
to truck to
bins
(385,000 SO
Conveyor stacker
to bins
(2,184,000 ST)
Conveyor slacker
(3,253,000 ST)
Conveyor stacker
(2,467.000 ST)
Truck to front-
end loader to
open storage
pile
(096,000 ST)
Truck dump to
open storage
pile (85,800 ST)
Conveyor to bins
to conveyor
stacker to open
Storage
Open storage pile
(3,334,000 ST)
Bins
(2, 569,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(3,253,000 ST)
Open storage Pile
(2,467,000 SO
Open storage pile
(896,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(85,800 ST)
Open storage pile
(651,000 ST)
Storage
load-out
Trout end
loader to
conveyors
(3,334,000 ST)
Bins to convey-
ors
(2.569,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer
(3,253,000 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer
(2.467,000 SO
Bucket wheel
reclaimer
(896,000 ST)
Clamshell to
conveyors
(85,500 ST)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer
(651.000 ST)
handled
Transfer
stations
/ transfer
stations
(3.334,000 SI)
None
8 transfer
stations
9 transfer
stations
(2.467.000 Sf)
9 transfer
stations
(896,000 ST)
9 transfer
stations
(85,800 SI)
9 transfer
stations
(651,000 SI)
Screening
Screening
(3,334,000 SI)
Screening
(2,569,000 SO
Screening
(3,253,000 ST)
Screening
(2,467.000 SI)
Screening
(896,000 ST)
None
None
storage pile
(651,000 ST)
-------
TABLE 5. (concluded)
Material
Sinter Input
(Coke fines)
Sinter
j| Due to coal
Origination Transfer
mole stations
Truck (210,240 ST) 9 transfer
stations
(210,240 ST)
Truck 6 transfer
(3,299,000 ST) stations
(3.299.000 ST)
strike in 1978, these data are for 1979.
Handling method and amount of material handled
Storage
load- in Storage
Crusher to lied- Open storage pile
ding/blendinq (52,560 ST)
plant then by
stacker into pile
(52,560 ST)
Stacker into Open storage pile
pile (66,000 ST)
(66.000 ST)
Storage
load-out
Conveyor
transfer
station
(52,560 ST)
Crusher to
Transfer sta-
tions (157,680
Clamshell to
conveyor to
bin
(66,000 ST)
Truck to bin
(3,233,000 ST)
Transfer
stations Screening
9 transfer sta- None
lions to sinter
plant bins
(210,240 ST)
ST)
10 transfer Screening
stations (2,425,000 ST)
(3,299.000 ST)
-------
TABLE A-6. RAW AND INTERMEDIATE MATERIAL HANDLING AT THE GREAT LAKES STEEL DIVISION OF NATIONAL STEEL
CORPORATION IN 1978
O
Material
Coke
Coal
Iron Ore Pellets
Unaijlomerated Iron
Ore
Limestone/Dolomite
Sinter, Nodules
and Briquettes
Origination
mode
Coke ovens
(1,780,000 ST)
Barge unloaded
by clamshell
(1,986,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded
by rotary dump
(221,000 ST)
Barge unloaded
by clamshell
(2,067.000 ST)
Barge unloaded by
bucket ladder con-
veyor (1,267,000 ST)
Barge unloaded by
clamshell
(98,000 ST)
Barge unloaded by
bucket ladder
(88,000 ST)
Sinter plant
(1,334,000 SD
Handling method and amount of material
Transfer
stations
5 transfer
stations
(498,000 ST)
2 transfer
stations
(1,986,000 ST)
1 transfer
station
(221,000 ST)
5 transfer
stations
(467,000 ST)
1 transfer
station
(98,000 ST)
5 transfer
stations
(17,600 ST)
3 transfer
stations
(1,334.000 ST)
Storage
load* in
None
Conveyor
stacker
(1,986,000 ST)
Front end
loader
(221,000 SI)
Same clamshell
that unloaded
barge
(2,067,000 Sf)
Conveyor stacker
(467,000 SF)
Conveyor to
storage pile
(800,000 SI)
Same clamshell
that unloaded
barge (98,000 SI)
Conveyor to
storage pile
(70,400 SD
Conveyor stacker
(17,600 ST)
Conveyor slacker
(387,000 SI)
Storage
Hone
Open storage pile
(2,207,000 SI)
Open storage pile
(3.334,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(98,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(88,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(387,000 ST)
Storage
load-out
None
Front end
loader to
conveyor
(993,000 ST)
Clamshell
bucket
(1,214,000 ST)
Front end
loader to
conveyor
(467,000 ST)
Clamshell
bucket to
conveyor
(2.867.000 ST)
Clamshell
bucket to
conveyor
(98,000 ST)
Front end
loader to
conveyor
(17,600 ST)
Clamshell bucket
to conveyor
(70,400 ST)
Clamshell
bucket to
conveyor
(387,000 SI)
handled
Transfer
stations Screen IMC/
None Screened
(1. 780,000 SI)
1 transfer sta~ None
tion (2,207.000 ST)
5 transfer None
stations
(1.867,000 ST)
4 transfer None
stations
(98,000 ST)
None None
3 transfer Screened
stations (1,041,000 SI)
(387,000 SI)
-------
TABLE 6. (concluded)
Handling method and amount of material handled
Material
Sinter Input (Flux,
Iron Ore, and Coke
Fines)
Origination
mode
Barge unloaded by
clamshell
(721,000 ST)
Transfer
stations
9 transfer
stations
(721,000 ST)
Storage
load- in
Conveyor stacker
(724,000 ST)
Storage
Open storage pile
(1,575,000 ST)
Storage
load- out
Front end
loader to
conveyor
(850,000 ST)
Transfer
stations Screening
8 transfer sta- None
lions for flux
and coke; 11 for
iron ore
(1,575,000 ST)
Barge unloaded by
bucket ladder con-
veyor
(721,000 ST)
Coke breeze from
screening
(126,000 ST)
Front end loader
(126,000 ST)
Clamshell
bucket to
conveyor
(724,000 ST)
-------
IABLE A-7. RAW AND INTERMEDIATE MATERIAL HANDLING AT UNITED STATES STEEL'S GENEVA WORKS IN 1978
Handling method and amount of material
Material
Coal
Coke
Iron Ore Pellets
*
Origination
mode
Railcar unloaded
by rotary dump
(1.540,000 ST)
Coke ovens
(1,150,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded
by rotary dump
(1.450,000 ST)
Transfer
stations
1 transfer
station
(1.150,000 SI)
1 transfer-
station
(1.150,000 SO
None
Storage
load- in
Conveyor to
open storage
(1.540,000 SI)
None
Conveyor stacker
(1.450,000 SI)
Storage
Open storage pi le
(1,540,000 SI)
None
Open storage pile
(1,450,000 ST)
Storage
load-out
Dozer pushes
onto under-
ground con-
veyor
(1,540,000 ST)
None
Rake reclaimer
and bottom
plow feeder
to underground
conveyor
(1,235.000 SI)
Bucket wheel
reclaimer
(145,000 ST)
handled
Iransfer
stations
Primary and sec-
ondary hammer mill
blending bins, 9
transfer and stor-
age bins
(1,540,000 ST)
3 transfer-
stations
(1,150,000 ST)
10 transfei-
stations
(1.450,000 ST)
Screening
None
t
Screening
(1.150,000
Screen imj
(1,450,000
ST)
SO
Front end loader
Unagglomerated Iron
Ore
Limestone/ dolomite
Sinter
Sinter Input
(Coke Fines)
Sinter Input (flux
and iron ore)
Railcar unloaded
by rotary dump
(1,007,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded
by bottom dump
(645,000 ST)
Sinter plant
(863,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded
fay bottom dump
(64,000 ST)
See iron ore and
limestone/dolomite
6 transfer
stations
(1,007,000 Sf)
None
1 Drop box on-
to continuous
conveyor
(863,000 ST)
3 transfer
stations and
screening
(64,000 ST)
See iron ore &
limestone/dolo-
mite
Conveyor stacker
(1,007,000 ST)
Conveyor to bins
(645,000 ST)
None
Open storage pile
(1,007,000 ST)
Bins
(645,000 ST)
None
to conveyor
(72,500 ST)
Bottom plow
feeder
(1,007,000 ST)
Bins to scale
car
(645,000 ST)
None
5-10 transfer
stations
(1,007,000 SI)
None
None
Screening
(1,007,000
None
Screening
ST)
(863,000 ST)
Conveyor to bins
(57,400 ST)
See iron ore and
limestone/dolo-
mite
Bins
(57,400 ST)
Open storage piles
(1,061,000 Sf)
Bins to sinter
mix system
(57,400 ST)
Bottom plow
feeder to con-
veyor
(1,061,000 ST)
None outside
sinter bui Iding
5-10 transfer
stations
(1,061,000 Sf)
None
Screening
(1,061,000
SO
-------
TABLE A-8. RAW AND INTERMEDIATE MATERIAL HANDLING AT UNITED STATES STEEL'S GARY WORKS IN 1978
1
CO
Material
Coal
Coke
Sinter Input
(Coke fines)
Sinter
Iron Ore Pellets
Sinter Input
(Iron Ore)
Origination
mode
Rotary dump of rail-
car onto underground
conveyor
(4,700,000 ST)
Coke ovens
(3,290,000 ST)
Rail car side dump
(419,000 ST)
Bottom dump railcar
(419,000 ST)
Undersized material
from screening and
crushing
(3,350,000 ST)
Sinter plants
(4,375,000 ST)
Hulett unloading of
bulk vessel
(3,980,000 ST)
Vessel (self-
uuloader)
(1,400,000 SI)
Crane-clamshell
bucket transfer
from ore vessel
(4,190.000 SO
Transfer
stations
7 conveyor
transfer
stations
(4,700,000 ST)
Conveyor
transfer
station
(3,290,000 ST)
Truck
(4,190,000 ST)
None
Crane clamshell
bucket drop ore
bridge
(3,980,000 ST)
Conveyor trans-
fer station
(1,400,000 ST)
Conveyor trans-
fer station
(4,190,000 SI)
Handling method and amount of material
Storage
load- in
Truck trans-
ported from
stocking out
bin
(704,000 ST)
Coal preparation
and handling
(i.e. , screening.
pulverizing, and
proportioning
.(3,996.000 ST)
Transfer car
(3,290,000 ST)
Truck
(4.190,000 ST)
Conveyor
(4,375,000 ST)
Crane clamshell
(ore bridge)
onto pi le
(1,610,000 ST)
Stationary
stacker onto
pile
(3,770,000 ST)
Conveyor trans-
port
(4,190,000 ST)
Storage
Open storage pi le
(704,000 ST)
None
(3,996,000 ST)
Storage bin
(3,290,000 ST)
Storage bin
(4,190,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(656,000 ST)
Sinter load-out
bin building
(3,720,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(5.380,000 ST)
Open storage
(2,100,000 ST)
Storage
load-out
front-end
loader pickup
and trans-
ported to re-
claim hopper
(704,000 ST)
Vibrator
feeder
(3,290,000 ST)
Conveyor trans-
port
(4,190,000 ST)
Transfer car
(4,375,000 ST)
Truck and
conveyor
(1.775,000 ST)
Crane clam-
shell bucket
transfer to
hi-line bin
(3,600,000 ST)
Conveyor
transport
(4,190,000 ST)
handled
Transfer
stations
Conveyor trans-
fer station
(4,700,000 ST)
Conveyor trans-
fer station
(3,290,000 ST)
Conveyor trans-
port
(4,190,000 ST)
Hi -Line storage
bin
(2,930.000 ST)
Storage bin
(1,450,000 ST)
Truck and
conveyor
(1.775,000 ST)
Transfer car
(3,600,000 ST)
None
Screening
Conveyor screening station
(4,700,000 SI)
Conveyor screening station
(2,960,000 ST)
Emergency bins (not screened)
(330,000 ST)
None
No. 13 blast furnace
screening station
(1.440,000 ST)
Remaining blast furnaces
(No screening)
(2,930,000 ST)
No. 13 blast furnace
(1,775,000 Si)
No screening
Remaining blast furnaces
(3,600,000 ST)
No screening
None
-------
TABLE A-8. (concluded)
Material
Sinter Input
(Flux)
Limestone/Dolomite
Unagglomerated Iron
Ore
Origination
mode
Self-unloading
barge
(4,190,000 SI)
llulelt unloading of
bulk vessel
(452,000 ST)
Self-unloading vessel
(1.930.000 SI)
llulett unloading
of ore vessel
(3. 386,000 ST)
Transfer
stations
Conveyor trans-
port
(4.190,000 SI)
Ore bridge
(2,380.000 ST)
Ore bridge
(3,386,000 ST)
Handling method and amount of material
Storage
load' in
Conveyor trans-
port
(4.190,000 SI)
Ore bridge
(2,380.000 SI)
Crane-clamshell
bucket drop into
pile (Ore bridge)
(3,386,000 SI)
Sloraye
Hevert blenUing
piles
(4,190,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(2,380,000 SI)
Open storage pile
(3.38G.OOO ST)
Sloraye
load-out
transport
[ruck
(4.1'JO.OOO SI)
Crane- clcim-
shel 1 bucket
transfer to
bin
(2,380.000 ST)
Crane-clam-
shell bucket
transfer to
bin
(3,306,000 ST)
handled
Transfer
stations Screening
Conveyor trans- None
porl
(4,190,000 SI)
Transfer car None
(2,380,000 SI)
Transfer car None
(3,386.000 SI)
I
—>
-p>
-------
TABLE A-9. RAW AND INTERMEDIATE MATERIAL HANDLING AT THE J & L STEEL ALIQUIPPA PLANT IN 1978
, — _ _
Material
Coke
Coal for boilers
and storage
Coal for Coke
oven
Iron Ore Pellets
Unagglomerated Iron
Ore
Origination Transfer
mode stations
Railcar unloaded by Hone
bottom dump
(1,165,000 ST)
Barge unloaded by None
clamshell (34,600 SI)
Barge unloaded by
bucket-ladder con-
veyor (1,678.000 ST)
Truck unloaded
(17,300 ST)
Barge unloaded by 22 transfer
bucket- ladder stations
conveyor and fed (2,358,000 ST)
into bins
(2,358,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded
via rotary dump
(73,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded None
to transfer car
via rotary dump
(1,184,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded to
conveyor via bottom
dump
(1,184,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded None
to transfer car
via rotary dump
(62,200 ST)
Handling method and amount of material
Storage
load- in
Conveyors
(1,465,000 SI)
Conveyor to
temporary stor-
age to coal yard
pile via bucket
ladder conveyor
(623,000 SI)
Front-end loader
to stacker con-
veyor to bins
(644,000 ST)
Conveyors to
crusher to
bins
(2,431,000 ST)
Transfer car
to temporary
storage area
to ore yard pile
via clamshell
(1,184,000 ST)
Conveyors to
cast-house
storage bins
(1,184,000 ST)
Transfer car to
temporary stor-
age to ore yard
via clamshell
(62,200 ST)
Storage
Storage bins
(1,465,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(623,000 ST)
Bins
(661,000 ST)
Storage bins
(2,431.000 ST)
Open storage
(1,184,000 ST)
Open storage pi le
(62,200 ST)
Storage
load-out
Conveyors
(1,465,000 ST)
Ducket ladder
to conveyor
(623,000 ST)
Bins to con-
veyor to
crusher to
bins
(2,431,000 ST)
Clamshell to
transfer car
(1,184,000 ST)
Clamshell
bucket to
transfer car
handled
Transfer
stations Screening
None Screened - 95% to blast fur-
naces; 5% to sinter plants
None None
None None
Transfer car Screened
to cast house (1,018,000 ST)
storage bin
(1,184,000 ST)
Transfer car Screening
to bin (27.700 SO
(62,200 ST)
-------
TABLE A-9. (concluded)
Handling method and amounl of material
Material
Limes tone/Do lomi le
Sinter
Sinter Input (Flux,
Iron ore and Coke
Fines)
Origination Transfer
mode stations
Rai Icar unloaded None
to transfer car
via rotary dump
(71.000 ST)
Railcar unloaded
to conveyor via
bottom dump
(30,000 ST)
Sinter plant 5 transfer
(1,548,000 ST) stations
(1,548,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded 2 transfer
to conveyor via stations
rotary dump (2,182,000 ST)
(1,527,000 ST)
Railcar unloaded to
conveyor via bottom
dump
(655,000 ST)
Storage
load- in
Transfer car to
temporary stor-
age to main
storage area via
clamshell
(71,000 SI)
Conveyor to bins
(30,000 ST)
Conveyor to bins
(1,548,000 ST)
Conveyor to
(2.182,000 ST)
Storage
Open storage pile
(71,000 SI)
Bins
(30,000 St)
Bins
(1,548,000 SI)
Dins
(2,182,000 ST)
Storage
load-out
Clamshell
bucket to
transfer car
(71,000 ST)
Bins to trans-
fer car
(1,548,000 ST)
Bins to con-
veyor
(2,182,000 ST)
handled
Transfer
stations Screening
transfer car to None
bin
(71,000 SI)
Transfer car Screening
to casthouse (666,000 SI)
bins to skip
cars (882,000 SI)
fransfer car to
casthouse bins
to 3 transfer
stations
(666.000 SI)
15 transfer None
stations
(2,182,000 SI)
-------
TABLE A-10. RAW AND INTERMEDIATE MATERIAL HANDLING AT J & L STEEL INDIANA HARBOR PLANT IN 1978
Material
Coke
Coal
Pellets
Unagglomeraled
Iron Ore
Sinter, Nodules
and Briquettes
Sinter Input (flux,
Iron Ore and Coke
Fines)
Limestone/dolomite
Origination
mode
Coke ovens
(840,000 SI)
Unloaded from rail-
car via side dump
(1,260,000 ST)
Barge unloaded via
clamshell
(666,000 SI)
Barge unloaded via
bucket ladder con-
veyor
(3,775,000 ST)
Barge unloaded via
clamshell
(424,000 ST)
Sinter plant
(700,000 ST)
Barge unloaded
via clamshell
(609,000 ST)
Truck unloaded
(19,000 ST)
Barge unloaded
via bucket
ladder conveyor
(60,000 ST)
truck unloaded
(338,000 ST)
Transfer
stations
4 transfer
stations
(840,000 SI)
1 transfer
station
(1,260,000 ST)
None
None
None
None
6 transfer
stations
(19,000 ST)
None
Handling method and amount of material handled
Storage
load- in
Conveyors
(840,000 ST)
Clamshell bucket
to storage pile
(630,000 SI)
Clamshell bucket
to bin storage
(630,000 ST)
Clamshell bucket
to storage pile
(3,331.000 ST)
Conveyors to
bins
(1,110,000 ST)
Clamshell bucket
to storage pile
(424,000 ST)
Clamshell
stacker to open
storage pile
(105,000 ST)
Conveyors to
bins
(595,000 ST)
Clamshell bucket
to open storage
pile
(609,000 ST)
Conveyor stacker
(19,000 ST)
Clamshell bucket
to open storage
pile
(398,000 ST)
Storage
Bins
(840,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(630,000 ST)
Bins
(630,000 SI)
Open storage pile
(3,331,000 SO
Bins
(1,110,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(424,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(105,000 ST)
Bins
(595,000 ST)
Open storage pile
(609,000 ST)
Bins
(19,000 ST)
Open storage pi le
(398,000 ST)
Storage Transfer
load-out stations
Bin to None
conveyors
Clamshell 3 transfer
bucket to stations
conveyors (1,260,000 ST)
(1,260,000 ST)
Clamshell None
bucket to
conveyor
(3,331,000 ST)
Bridge crane to
conveyor
(1.110,000 ST)
Front end 5 transfer
loader to stations
conveyor (424,000 ST)
(424,000 ST)
Bins to con- None
veyors
(595,000 ST)
Clamshell
bucket to
conveyors
(105,000 SI)
Front end 5 transfer
loader to stations
conveyor (628,000 ST)
(609,000 ST)
Bins to con-
veyor
(19,000 ST)
Clamshell None
bucket to
conveyors
(398,000 ST)
Screening
None
None
None
Screened
(424,000 ST)
None
Screening
(628,000 SI)
None
-------
TABLE A-ll. SLAG HANDLING AT SURVEYED IRON AND STEEL PLANTS IN 1978
Plant
Interlake-Chicago
Origination process
Blast furnaces
(297.000 ST)
Mullen slag
transport
Flows to pits along
side casthouse and
is quenched
(297.000 SD
Cooled slag
loading and
transport
(ronl-end loader to
haul truck
(2
-------
I1. Oprr.it ing and N.i int eit.nu e Costs: I'lease complete I lie following table Tor eat h street sweeper rurrmlly in service.
The costs indicated :;lioulil he in 19BO dollars.
Annual Operating anil Maintenance ('osls lor Strecl Cloaiiing Approx. Annual
Type of Cost of" Coiisiniialile SIIJHI|_^OB Down-Time for
M.ike
-------
Cleaning Scsedule: Please provide tile schedule used for cleaning all of the paved roads tnroughout cue plant.
Tins schedule should include the frequency of cleaning, how this frequency was decided upon, and the method
by which the various types of street sweepers described above are allocated to the cleaning of certain sec-
tions of road.
Projections: Please indicate below any of the sweepers mentioned above which are scheduled for retirement in the
near future, the type of equipment being seriously considered as their replacement, and the reasons for such con-
sideration. Also provide below any proposed changes in the operating or cleaning schedule which may be imple-
mented in the future or any equipment modifications or changes considered.
B-6
-------
III. CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR UNPAVED ROADS, SHOULDERS, PARKING LOTS, AND ACTIVE STORAGE PILES
A. Controls for Unpaved Roads and Paved Road Shoulders: Please complete the following information for your facility
where applicable.
Treatment Method: Watering Chemical Dust Suppressants Other
(specify)
Type(s) of Chemical(s) Used: (check one or more as applicable)
Lignin Sulfonate Petroleum Resins ______ Salts ______ Wetting Agents
Other
(specify)
Trade or Chemical Name(s) of Dust Suppressant(s) Used (if any) _____________________________
Type of Diluent(s) Used (if any) ^
Application Rate gal. of % solution per yd2 of surface treated
Dilution Ratio parts of chemical to parts _
(type of diluent)
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received °1, by ^
(weight or volume)
Frequency of Application
Basis for Frequency of Application
.kiethod of Application (e.g. , distributor truck)
Length of Road Which Is Treated Annually miles/yr
Total Capacity of On-Site Chemical Storage gal. No. and Capacity of Storage Tanks
Cost of Concentrated Chemical Dust Suppressant(s) Delivered to Your Plant S /gal. (Chemical)
$ /gal. (Freight)
Gallons of Chemical Delivered Per Shipment gal.
Gallons of Chemical Delivered Per Year gal.
Capital Cost for Storage Tanks S in dollars
(year of purchase)
Line Items Included In Capital Cost for Storage Tanks:
5 for tanks
$ ____________________ for installation labor
S _________________ for accessories
$ for other
Construction Material for Storage TanKS (e.g. concrete or metal)
Is Storage Tank Above or Below Ground
Is the Tank Heated
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application (e.g., distributor truck) $
in dollars (year of purcnase)
Capacity of Distributor Truck gallons
B-7
-------
Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment $ in _________ dollars
(year)
$ per mile of treated road
S per actual mile of road
(Please attach supporting calculation for operating and maintenance costs)
Major Maintenance Problems Encountered (specify) ______________________________________
B. Control Methods for Unpaved Parking Lots and Other Exposed Areas: Please complete the following information for
your facility where applicable.
Treatment Method: Watering ________ Chemical Dust Suppressants Other
(specify)
Type(s) of Chemical(s) Used: (check one or more as applicable)
Lignin Sulfonate Petroleum Resins Salts Wetting Agents
Other
(specify)
Trade or Chemical Name(s) of Dust Suppressant(s) Used (if any) ___________________________________
Type of Diluent(s) Used (if any)
Application Rate __________ gal. of \ solution per acre of surface treated
Dilution Ratio _________ parts of chemical to _^_^^^^^ parts
(type of diluent)
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received % by _
(weight or volume)
Frequency of Application ___________________________________________________________
Basis for Frequency of Application
Method of Application (i.e., distributor truck)
Area Which Is Treated Annually acres/yr
Total Capacity of On-Site Chemical Storage gal. No. and Capacity of Storage Tanks
Cost of Concentrated Chemical Dust Suppressant(s) Delivered to Your Plant $ /gal. (Chemical)
$ /gal. (Freight)
Gallons of Chemical Delivered Per Shipment gal.
Gallons of Chemical Delivered Per Year gal.
Capital Cost for Storage Tanks $ in dollars
(year of purchase)
-------
Line Items Included in Capital Cost for Storage Tanks.
S for tanks
$ for installation labor
$ for accessories
S for other
Construction Material for Storage Tanks (e.g., concrete or metal)
Is Storage Tank Above or Below Ground ____________________
Is the Tank Heated
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application (e.g. distributor truck) $ in _______________ dollars
(year of purchase)
Capacity of distributor truck _______________ gal.
Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment
$ in _ dollars
(year)
S _______________ P" treated acre
$ per actual acre
Major Maintenance Problems Encountered (specify) _________^_______^__^_
Approx. Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment $ per acre
Major Maintenance Problems Encountered (specify)
C. Control Methods for Active Storage Piles: Please complete the following information for each major active storage
pile in your facility where applicable. Use additional sheets as necessary.
1. Type of Material in Storage (e.g., coal, pellets) Surface Area of Storage Pile ft2
Is Stated Surface Area Projected Area or Actual Area ________________________
Average Daily Material Throughput tons/day Average Material Reserve tons
Treatment Methods:
Watering Chemical Suppressants or Binders Other
(specify)
Typefsl of Chemical(s) Used: (check one or more as applicable)
Lignin Salfonate ______ Petroleum Resins Salts Wetting Agents
Other
(specify)
t
Trade or Chemical Name(s) of Dust Suppressant(s) Used (if any)
Type of Diluent(s) Used (if any) ^
Application Rate gal. of % solution per ft2 of surface treated
Dilution Ratio parts of chemical to parts
(type of diluent)
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received % by
(weight or volume)
B-9
-------
Frequency of Application
Basis for Frequency of Application
Method of Application (e.g. sprinkler system or mobile distributor truck)
Area Treated Annually _ acres/yr
No. of Spray Nozzles in Operation _ Type of Spray Pattern Generated
Sake of Spray Sozzle(s) _ Model No.(s)
Sozzle Capacity ____________ gpm @ _____________
Spray Angle _ ° Maximum Area of Coverage of Spray Pattern _ ft2
Designer of Sprinkler System ____________________ Address _
Phone No. ( _ ) _ - _ Est. Life Expectancy of System _ yrs .
Total Capacity of On-Site Chemical Storage _ gal. No. and Capacity of Storage Tanks _
Cost of Concentrated Chemical Dust Suppressant Delivered to Your Plant $ /gal. (Chemical)
$ /gal. (Freight)
Gallons of Chemical Delivered Per Shipment _______________________ gal-
Gallons of Chemical Delivered Per Year _________________________ gal.
Capital Cost for Storage Tanks $ in ________________ dollars
(year of purchase)
Line Items Included in Capital Cost for Storage TanKs.
S ______________ for tanks
$ for installation labor
$ for accessories
$ for other
Construction Material for Storage Tanks (e.g. concrete or metal)
Is Storage Tank Above or Below Ground _________________________
Is the Tank Heated
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application (e.g., distributor truck) $ in dollars
(year of purchase)
Capacity of Distributor Truck gal.
Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment
$ ______________ in dollars
(year)
S per treated acre
5 per actual acre
Major Maintenance Problems Encountered (e.g., freezing, clogging) ______________________
Source of Water _______________ Degree of Water Treatment ______________________
B-10
-------
2. Type of Material in Storage (e.g., coal pellets) Surface Area of Storage Pile ft2
Is Stated Surface Area Projected Area or Actual Area
Average Daily Material Throughput tons/day Average Material Reserve __________________________ tons
Treatment Methods:
Watering Chemical Suppressants or Binders Other
(specify)
Type(s) of Chemical(s) Used: (check one or more as applicable)
Lignin Sulfonate Petroleum Resins Salts Wetting Agents
Other
(specify)
Trade or Chemical Name(s) of Dust Suppressant(s) Used (if any)
Type of Diluent(s) Used (if any)
Application Rate gal. of % solution per ft2 of surface treated
Dilution Ratio ________ parts of chemical to parts
(type of diluent)
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received % by ____________________________
(weight or volume)
Frequency of Application ________________________________________________________
Basis for Frequency of Application
Method of Application (e.g., sprinkler system or mobile distributor truck)
No. of Spray Nozzles in Operation _____________ Type of Spray Pattern Generated
Area Treated Annually __________________________ acres/yr
No. of Spray Nozzels in Operation __________________ Type of Spray Pattern Generated
Make of Spray Nozzle(s) _ Model No.(s)
Nozzle Capacity ______________ gpm (? ____________
Spray Angle _ ° Maximum Area of Coverage of Spray Pattern _ ___ ft2
Designer of Sprinkler System _ _ Address ____________________ _ ___
Phone No. ( _ ) _ ; _ Est. Life Expectancy of System _ yrs.
Total Capacity of On-Site Chemical Storage gal. No. and Capacity of Storage Tanks
Cost of Concentrated Chemical Dust Suppressant Delivered to Your Plant S /gal. (Chemical)
S /gal. (Frequent)
Gallons of Chemical Delivered Per Shipment gal.
Gallons of Chemical Delivered Per Year _______________________ gal.
Capital Cost for Storage Tanks $ in dollars
(year of purchase)
B-n
-------
lir.e Items Included in Capital Cost for Storage Tanks.
$ for tanks
j for installation labor
$ for accesssones
$ for other
Construction Material for Storage Tanks (e.g., concrete or metal)
Is Storage Tank Above or Below Ground
Is the Tank Heated
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application (e.g., distributor truck) $
Caoacitv of Distributor Truck
gal.
Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment.
S in
dollars
(year)
per treated acre
per actual acre
Major Maintenance Problems Encountered (e.g., freezing, clogging) _____
Source of Water Degree of Water Treatment
dollars
(year of purchase)
Xame of Party Supplying Above Information
(Name)
(Title)
(Telephone Number)
B-12
-------
APPENDIX C
MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN/OPERATION AND COST DATA
C-1
-------
TABLE C-l. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGN AND COST DATA FOR VACUUM SWEEPING PAVED ROADS
Name of Company:
Make: Vac-All
Armco, Inc.
Model: E10A
Year Purchased and Est. Life Expectancy: 1980 5 yrs.
Name of Manufacturer: Central Engineering Company
Phone Number: (513) 681-2200
Approx. Annual Operating Cost: $214,000
Fuel Consumption: 4 mpg
Cleaning Capacity: 150 ftVhr @ mph
<~> Vacuum Blower Capacity: 12,000 cfm/min
Hopper Capacity: 10 yd3
' Location of Plant: Middletown, Ohio
Purchase Price: $72,000
No. of This Model Currently in Service: two
Address: 4429 W. State St., Milwaukee, WI 53208
Sales Representative: Bode Finn Co., Cincinnati, OH
Vehicle Weight: 32,000 Ib.
f •—
Width of Area Cleaned per Pass: 5 ft.
Normal Sweeping Speed: 5 mph.
Velocity at Suction Head: N/A fps.
Type of Dust Control System: wet
(i.e., wet or dry)
-------
TABLE C-2. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGN AND COST DATA FOR FLUSHING PAVED ROADS
I
CO
Name of Company: Annco, Inc. Location of Plant: Mlddletown, Ohio
Make: Tractor-Ford Tank-Etnyre Model: DTR Purchase Price: $68,000
Year Purchased and Est. Life Expectancy: 1976 10 yrs. No. of This Model Currently in Service: one
Name of Manufacturer: Ford, Etnyre Address: King Equip. Co., Street Rt 63 1-75, Monroe, OH
Phone Number: ( ) Sales Representative: King Equip. Co., Street Rt 63 1-75
Monroe, OH
Was Original Unit Modified to Flushing Operation: no Cost to Modify: $ N/A
Approx. Annual Operating Cost: $57,000 Vehicle Weight: (wet) N/A Ib.
Vehicle Weight: (dry) N/A Ib. Fuel Consumption: 7 mpg
Water Tank Capacity: 8,000 gal. Water flow at Nozzles: 188 gpm
Normal Vehicle Speed: mph Hopper Capacity: 40 yd3
Water Pressure at Nozzles: 50 psig Daily Water Consumption: 30.000 gal.
Source of Water: Treated river water Degree of Water Treatment: 1,800 gal/mile
-------
TABLE C-3. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGN AND COST DATA FOR BROOM SWEEPING PAVED ROADS
o
i
Name of Company: Armco, Inc.
Make: Versa-Sweeper
Year Purchased and Est. Life Expectancy:
Name of Manufacturer: Terrain King
Phone Number: (512) 379-1480
Approx. Annual Operating Cost: $65,100 — #1
$57,000 - #2
Model: 6300
Fuel Consumption: 3 mpg
Hopper Capacity: N/A yd3
Water Tank Capacity: N/A gal.
Cleaning Capacity: 69,700 ftVhr @ 3 mph.
5 yrs.
Location of Plant: Houston, Texas
Purchase Price: $18,000 - Purch 8/78
$20,000 - Purch 4/80
No. of This Model Currently in Service: two
Address: P.O. Box 549, Seguin, Texas
Sales Representative: Plains Machinery Co. (Houston)
Vehicle Weight: 5,000 Ib.
Width of Area Cleaned per Pass: 7.5 ft.
Normal Sweeping Speed: 3 to 5 mph.
Water Flow at Spray Bar: N/A gpm
-------
TABLE 04. OPERATING SCHEDULE OF PAVED ROAD CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Plant
Armco,
Armco,
Armco,
Middle town
Middletown
Houston
Make of sweeper
Vac-All
Etnyre
Versa-Sweeper
Model No.
E10A
DTR
6300
Type of sweeper
(i.e. , vacuum)
Vacuum
Flushing
Broom
Hours/Day
operated
12
8
6
Days/Month
operated
28
20
20 to 25
Length of
Road Cleaned
per day
6 miles
20 miles
3 to 5 miles3
Sweeper must make multiple passes on all roads. Thus, although it travels 20 to 30 miles/day, only 3 to
5 miles of plant roads are cleaned.
o
I
en
-------
TABLE C-5. CLEANING FREQUENCY FOR PAVED ROADS
Armco, Middletown
All paved road segments which are located in zones A, B, and D (entire plant excluding the hot
metals area) are to be swept or flushed of surface material once during every three consecutive
days.
All paved road segments which are located in zone C (the hot metals area) are to be swept or
flushed of surface materials once during every two consecutive days.
Frequency was determined by on-site observation, vehicle counts, and types of materials
transported on these roads.
Dispatcher allocates street sweepers to various zones according to schedules.
Armco, Houston
Only one sweeper truck at a time is assigned to cleaning paved roads in the plant. The truck is
r> staffed for one 8-hr turn per day, giving about 6 hr/day available for use.
cr>
The sweeping pattern covers each paved road in the plant and takes approximately 3 days to
complete. The pattern is then repeated.
Deviations from the pattern are made as needed, based on observations and/or special requests,
to provide extra coverage of dirtier roads.
-------
TABLE C-6. BREAKDOWN OF ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR
PAVED ROAD CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Approx. annual totat operating
Plant
Armco,
Middle town
Armco ,
Middtetown
ftrmco ,
Middle town
Armco,
Houston
Armco,
Houston
Armco,
Houston
Make of Model
sweeper No.
Vac-All E10A
Vac-All E10A
Ford, Etnyre OTR
Versa- Sweeper 6300
(Purch. 8/78)
Versa-Sweeper 6300
(Purch. 4/80)
Water truck3
Type of sweeper Cost of
(i.e., vacuum) operator
vacuum $21.00/hr
vacuum $21.00/hr
flushing $21.QQ/hr
broom $42,630
broom $42,630
$42,630
and maintenance costs for street cleaning
Cost of consumable supplies Maintenance Approx.
Gasoline Water
and oil (if applic.)
$o'.30/mile N/A
$0.30/mile N/A
$0.17/mUe N/A
$3,066 N/A
$3,066 N/A
$3,066 -0-
Other and annual
(specify) repair costs depreciation
N/A $1.41/mile
N/A $1.41/mMe
N/A $2.13/m11e
N/A $16,400 $3,000
N/A $7,900 $3,333
N/A $16,300 $5,666
Approx. annual
down-time for
Total maintenance or
costs repairs (hr) '
$214,000
$214,000
$57,000
$65,100
$57,000
$67,700
240
240
380
570
270
342
a Watering truck must be operated along with sweepers to treat paved roads. Since water truck Is also used on unpaved roads, it would be
realistic to charge 14.6/18.9 of Its operating cost (or $52,300) to paved road care, and the remainder to unpaved road care.
-------
TABLE C-7. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGN AND COST DATA FOR APPLICATION OF CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS TO
UNPAVED ROADS AND SHOULDERS.
o
i
CO
Name of Company: Armco, Inc. Location of Plant: Middletown, Ohio
Trade or Chemical Name(s) of Dust Suppressant(s) Used (if any): Coherex®
Type of Diluent(s) Used (if any): water
Initial Application Rate: 0.19 gal. of 16.7 % solution/yd2 surface treated
Follow-up Application Rate: 0.28 gal. of 11 % solution per yd2 of surface treated
Initial Dilution Ratio: 1 parts of chemical to 5 parts water
(type of diluent)
Follow-up Dilution Ratio: 1 parts of chemical to 8 parts water
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received: N/A % by
(weight or volume)
i
Frequency of Application: Varies from once every 2 days to once every 6 weeks
Basis for Frequency of Application: Periodic visual inspection
Method of Application (i.e., distributor truck): Mobile distributor truck
Length of Road Which Can Be Treated Per day: 6. 3 miles/day
Total Capacity of OtrSite Chemical Storage: 20,000 gal. No. and Capacity of Storage Tanks: 2 (12,000 - 8,000)
Cost of Concentrated Chemical Dust Suppressant(s) Delivered to Your Plant: $1.06 gal. _+ 0.30 frt/gal.
Capital Cost for Storage Tanks: $30,000 (installed cost for metal tanks) in 1980 dollars
(year of purchase)
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-7 (concluded)
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application: $70,000 (4.500 gal, cap, truck) in 1980 dollars
(year of purchase)
Approx. Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment: $175 per mile
Major Maintenance Problems Encountered (specify): Coherex® will jell at 32°F and below
If Unpaved Roads Were to be Paved, What is Approx. Cost/Mile: $140.000 = 30 ft x 6 in.
Approx. Life Expectancy of a Typical Paved Road: 10 yrs.
o
I
-------
TABLE C-8. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGN AND COST DATA FOR WATERING OF UNPAVED ROADS AND SHOULDERS
Name of Company: Armco, Inc. Location of Plant: Houston, Texas
Type(s) of Chemical(s) Used: (check one or more as applicable) N/A
Lignin Sulfonate: Petroleum Resins: Salts: Wetting Agents:
Other: __^ ^___
(specify)
Trade or Chemical Name(s) of Dust Suppressant(s) Used (if any): N/A
Type if Diluent(s) Used (if any): N/A
Application Rate: 0.48 gal. of 0 % solution per yd2 of surface treated
Dilution-Ratio: parts of chemical to parts
(type of diluent)
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received ___ % by
0 (weight or volume)
o Frequency of Application: In general, once every 3 days
Basis for Frequency of Application: As needed based on rainfall and humidity, or on request.
Method of Application (i.e., distributor truck): Watering truck
Length of Road Which Can Be Treated Per Day 2 miles/day3
Total Capacity of Qn-Site Chemical Storage: N/A gal. No. and Capacity of Storage Tanks: N/A
Cost of Concentrated Chemical Dust Suppressant(s) Delivered to Your Plant: $ N/A /gal.
Capital Cost for Storage Tanks: $ N/A in dollars
(year of purchase)
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application: $34,000 in 1978 dollars
(year of purchase)
(continued)
-------
o
i
TABLE C-8 (concluded)
Approx. Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment: $3,580 per mile of unpaved road In plant
Major Maintenance Problems Encountered (specify): Replaced pump twice, replaced clutch twice
If Unpaved Roads Were to be Paved, What is Approx. Cost/Mile: $170,000 (est.)
Approx. Life Expectancy of a Typical Paved Road: 2 yrs.
Watering truck is used to water paved roads prior to their treatment by broom sweeper. As time permits,
the watering truck treats unpaved roads.
-------
TABLE C-9. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGN AND COST DATA FOR APPLICATION OF CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS
TO UNPAVED PARKING LOTS AND EXPOSED AREAS.
Name of Company: Armco, Inc. Location of Plant: Middletown, Ohio
Trade or Chemical Name(s) of Dust Suppressant(s) Used (if any): Coherex®
Type of Oiluent(s) Used (if any): water
Application Rate: 910 gal. of 16.7 % solution per acre of surface treated up to 1,364 gal. of 11.1%
Initial Dilution Ratio: \ part of chemical to 5 parts water
(type of diluent)
Follow-up Dilution Ratio: 1 part of chemical to 8 parts water
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received: N/A % by
(weight or volume)
Frequency of Application: Two to three coats per year
Basis for Frequency of Application: Periodic visual inspection
Method of Application (i.e., distributor truck): Mobile distributor truck
Area Which Can be Treated Per Day: 6.1 acres/day
Approx. Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment: $180 per acre
Major Maintenance Problems Encountered (specify): Freezing - 32°F and below
If Unpaved Parking Lots or Other Exposed Areas Were to be Paved, What is Approx. Cost/Acre: $29^000
($6.00/yd2)
Approx. Life Expectancy of a Typical Paved Parking Lot: N/A yrs.
-------
TABLE C-10. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGN AND COST DATA FOR WATERING OF STORAGE PILES
Name of Company: Armco, Inc. Location of Plant: Middletown, Ohio
1. Type of Material in Storage: Coal Surface Area of Storage Pile: 390,000 ft2
Average Daily Material Throughput: ^800.. tons/day Average Material Reserve: 34,000 tons
Treatment Methods:
Watering: %' Chemical Suppressants or Binders: Other:
Frequency of Application: Once every 2 days
Basis for Frequency of Application: Visual inspection
Method of Application (i.e., sprinkler system): Permanent sprinkler system
No. of Spray Nozzles in Operation: 10 Type of Spray Pattern Generated: N/A
Make of Spray Nozzle(s): Nelson Model No.(s): Nelson Big Gun P-2.00T
Nozzle Capacity: 500 gpm @ 100 psig
Spray Angle 27° above horizontal Maximum Area of Coverage of Spray Pattern: 394,000 ft2
Designer of Sprinkler System: Old Field Equipment Co. Address: 430 W. Seymore Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio
Phone No.: (513) ,821-5582 (Bob Meier) Est. Life Expectancy of System: 20, years
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application: $350,000 in 1980' dollars
(year of purchase)
Approx. Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment: _$ in N/A dollars
(year of record)
Maintenance Problems Encountered (i.e., freezing, clogging): Clogging
Source of Water: Storm sewer run-off Degree of Water Treatment: 35,000 gal/total area
Name of Company: Armco, Inc. Location of Plant: Middletown, Ohio
2. Type of Material in Storage: Limestone Surface Area of Storage Pile: Varies ft2
Average Daily Material Throughput: Varies tons/day Average Material Reserve: Varies tons
Treatment Methods:
Watering: V Chemical Suppressants or Binders: Other:
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received: % by
(weight or volume;
Frequency of Application: Based upon weather conditions
Basis for Frequency of Application: Periodic visual inspection
Method of Application (i.e., sprinkler system): Mobile water truck
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application: 533,000 (1.500 gal, cap, truck) in 1979 dollars
(year of purchase)
Approx. Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment: $173,000 in 1980 dollars
(year of record)
Maintenance Problems Encountered (i.e., freezing, clogging): None
Source of Water: Treated river water Degree of Water Treatment: None - general plant water
(continued)
-------
TABLE C-10 (continued)
Name of Company: Armco, Inc.
3. Type of Material in Storage: Taconits pellets
Average Daily Material Throughput: 2,979 tons/day
Treatment Methods:
Watering: _j_
Chemical Suppressants or Binders:
Location of Plant: Middletown. Ohio
Surface Araa of Storage Pile: Varies ft2
Average Material Reserve: Varies tons
Other:
(specify)
Frequency of Application:
Basis for Frequency of Application: Periodic visual inspection
Method of Application (i.e., sprinkler system): Mobile water truck
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application: $33,000 in
1979
dollars
(year of purchase)
Approx. Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment: S173.OOP in
Maintenance Problems Encountered (i.e., freezing, clogging): None
1980
dollars
(year of record)
Source of Water: Treated river water
Name of Company: Armco, Inc.
4. Type of Material in Storage: Coal (main pile)
Average Daily Material Throughput: 1,110 tons/day
Degree of Water Treatment: None-general plant water
Location of Plant: Houston, Texas
Surface Area of Storage Pile: app. 312,000 ft2
Average Material Reserve: est. 55.000 tons
Treatment Methods:
Watering: V
Chemical Suppressants or Binders:
Other:
Type(s) of Chemical(s) Used: (check one or more as applicable) N/A
Lignin Sulfonate: Petroleum Resins: Salts:
Other: _
(specify)
Trade or Chemical Name(s) of Oust Suppressant(s) Used (if any): N/A
Type of Oiluent(s) Used (if any): N/A
Application Rate: 0.16 gal. of 0 % solution per ft8 of surface treated
Dilution Ratio: .parts of chemical to _^___ parts
(specify)
Wetting Agents:
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received:
Frequency of Application: As needed
(type of diluent)
J- by
(weight or volume)
N/A
Basis for Frequency of Application: Operated if natural rainfall does not provide 1/4 in. of water
Method of Application (i.e., sprinkler system): Spray system
See below Type of Spray Pattern Generated: Overlapping circular
Model No.(s): See below
NOZZLES: Number
No. of Spray Nozzles in Operation:
Make of Spray Nozzle(s): Johns-ttenville
Nozzle Capacity: 100.4 gpm @ 50 psig
Model No_,
586G2E
886G2E
(continued)
C-14
-------
TABLE C-1Q (continued)
Spray Angle: .Std. - 26". can tilt to 30 to 35° Maximum Area of Coverage of Spray Pattern: 330.000 ft2
Designer of Sprinkler System: Watson Pi St. Co., Inc. Address: P.O. Box 36211, Houston, Texas 77036
Phone No.: (713) 771-5771 Est. Life Expectancy of System: 20 years
Total Capacity of On-Site Chemical Storage: N/A gal. No. and Capacity of Storage Tanks: 1 - 76,500 gal.
Cost of Concentrated Chemical Dust Suppressant Delivered to Your Plant: $ N/A /gal.
Capital Cost for Storage Tanks: $45,OOP in 1975 dollars
(year of purchase)
(installed cost for underground concrete tank)
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application: $216,000 in 1975 dollars
(year of purchase)
(includes storage tank, pumps, controls, piping, motors, and spray system)
Approx. Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment: $8,600 in 1980 dollars (estimated)
Maintenance Problems Encountered (i.e., freezing, clogging): freezing, plugging
Source of Water: Cooling water blowdown Degree of Water Treatment: None
Name of Company: Armco. Inc. Location of Plant: Houston, Texas
5. Type of Material in Storage: 0081(surge pile) Surface Area of Storage Pile: 16,000 ft8
Average Daily Material Throughput: 1,000 tons/day Average Material Reserve: 12,OOP tons
Treatment Methods:
Watering: __j L Chemical Suppressants or Binders: _____ Other:
(soecTfy)
Type(s) of Chem'cal(s) Used: (check one or more as applicable) N/A
Lignin Sulfonate: Petroleum Resins: Salts: Wetting Agents: _____
Other: ________^__
(specify)
Trade of Chemical Name(s) of Dust Suppressant(s) Used (if any): N/A
Type of Diluent(s) Used (if any): N/A
Application Rate: 0.16 gal. of 0 % solution per ft2 of surface treated
Dilution Ratio: parts of chemical to parts ^ )
(type of diluent))
) N/A
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received: % by )
(weight or volume)
Frequency of Application: As needed
Basis for Frequency of Application: Operated if natural rainfall does not provide I/a in. of water
Method of Application (i.e., sprinkler system): Spray system
No. of Spray Nozzles in Operation: 6 Type of Spray Pattern Generated: Overlapping half circles
MaKe of Spray Nozzle(s): Johns-Manville Model No.(s): 886G2E
Nozzle Capacity: 100.4 gpra @ 60 psig
Spray Angle: Std. 26°, can tilt to 30 to 35° Maximum Area of Coverage of Spray Pattern: ^0.700 ft2
(continued)
C-15
-------
TABLE C-10. (concluded)
Designer of Sprinkler System: Armco, Inc. Address: P.O. Box 95120, Houston, Texas 77013
Phone No.: (713) 96Q-6Q20 Est. Life Expectancy of System: 20 years
Total Capacity of On-Site Chemical Storage: N/A gal. No. and Capacity of Storage Tanks: 1 - 10,000 gal.
Cost of Concentrated Chemical Dust Suppressant Delivered to Your Plant: £ N/A /gal.
Capital Cost for Storage Tanks: $5,000 in 1975 dollars
(year of purchase)
(installed cost for underground concrete tank apportioned to surge pile)
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application: S72.20Q in 1975 dollars
(year of purchase)
(installed cost for storage tank, pumps, controls, piping, motors, and spray system)
Approx. Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment: $8,SOO in 1980 dollars (estimated)
Maintenance Problems Encountered (i.e., freezing, clogging): Freezing,' plugging
Source of Water: Cooling water blowdown Degree of Water Treatment: None
C-16
-------
TABLE C-ll. MISCELLANEOUS OPERATION/DESIGN AND COST DATA FOR APPLICATION OF CHEMICAL DUST
SUPPRESSANT TO STORAGE PILES
Name of Company: Bethlehem Steel Location of Plant: Burns Harbor, Indiana
Type of Material in Storage (e.g., coal, pellets): Coal1 Surface Area of Storage Pile: 2 ^
Is Stated Surface Area Projected Area or Actual Area: 2
Average Daily Material Throughput: l.OOO1 tons/day Average Material Reserve: 88,OOP1 tons
Treatment Methods:
Watering: Chemical Suppressants or Binders: X Other:
(specify)
Type(s) of Chemical(s) Used: (check one or more as applicable)
Lignin Sulfonate: Petroleum Resins: Salts: _____ Wetting Agents: _____
Other: X (latex binder)
(specify)
Trade or Chemical Name(s) of Dust Suppressant(s) Used (if any): Dow Chemical M-167 Chemical binder
Type of Diluent(s) Used (if any): Water
Application Rate: _____ gal. of ____% solution per ft2 of surface treated
Dilution Ratio: 55 parts of chemical to 2.000 parts water
Itype~o f d fTuent)
Concentration of Chemical Suppressant as Received: 100 % by weight
(weight or volume)
Frequency of Application: Once per week
Basis for Frequency of Application: SUPjective evaluation of effectiveness
Method of Application (e.g., sprinkler system or mobile distributor truck: Mobi 1e distributor (spray) truck
Area Treated Annually: 2 acres/year
No. of Spray Nozzles in Operation: 3 Type of Spray Pattern Generated: 8
Make of Spray Nozzle(s): _____ Model No.(s): _____
Nozzle Capacity: s gpm @ 3 psig
Spray Angle: ___° Maximum Area of Coverage of Spray Pattern: 3 ft2
Designer of Sprinkler System: _____ Address: _____
Phone No.: ( ) 3 . Est. Life Expectancy of System: _____ years
Total Capacity of On-Site Chemical Storage: _____ gal. No. and Capacity of Storage Tanks: _____
i
Cost of Concentrated Chemical Dust Suppressant Delivered to Your Plant: $4.40. /gal, (chemical)
_$ /gal. (freight)
Gallons of Chemical Delivered per Shipment: 1,100 to 2,200 gal.
Gallons of Chemical Delivered per Year: 13,200 gal.5
Capital Cost for Storage Tanks: S4 in * dollars
(year of purchase)
(continued)
C-17
-------
TABLE C-ll (concluded)
Line Items Included in Capital Cost for Storage Tanks:
$ * for tanks
S * for installation labor
$ * for accessories
S * for other
Construction Material for Storage Tanks (e.g., concrete or metal): 4
Is Storage Tank Above or Below Ground: 4 Is the Tank Heated: 4
Capital Equipment Cost for Method of Application (e.g., distributor truck): S 3 in 3 dollars
(year of purchase)
Capacity of Distributor Truck: 3 gal.
Annual Operating and Maintenance Cost of Treatment:
in 8 dollars
(year)
S . 3 per treated acre
S 3 per actual acre
Major Maintenance Problems Encountered (e.g., freezing, clogging): 3
Source of Water: Lake Michigan Degree of Water Treatment: Removal of solids by screening and straining
1 The reported information is apolicable to low volatile coal.
2 This information is not readily available.
3 The mobile distributor truck used to aoply dust suppressant solution to low volatile coal piles is owned
and operated by Correct Maintenance Corporation (CMC), 2000 Dombey Road, Portage, Indiana (219/762-2157).
Reportadly, technical information concerning this vehicle is considered to be confidential by CMC.
4 Oust suppressant material is received and stored in 55 gal. drums.
5 Volume purchased during the period July 1980 through August 1981.
5 This information is considered to be confidential by Bethlehem.
- •• .- ;•,... i Protection Agency
',;. "-'.'
..I...: t.' •-'
i, Illinois
Street
C-18
------- |